Toronto Union Park | 303.26m | 58s | Oxford Properties | Pelli Clarke Pelli

Not to mention the 1,000,000sf of retail space - in addition to the 500,000sf of high end retail planned for the Globe and Mail lands
 
Automation Gallery said:
Considering that parks/greenspace is constantly talked about by many here on UT, im surprised no one is drooling over the possibility of 1600 east/west feet of decking/park over the rail corridor connecting the waterfront.....Strange:confused:, my guess is that people that like more, parkland, city squares, fountains, etc.
just dont like the fact of the Casino component here...oh well
http://oxfordplace.ca/OxfordPlaceDevelopment.pdf
Click to expand...

They don't have any air rights there right now. They don't own the land.
 
no different than the fact that MGM is lobbying for an exhibition place casino, and that they own a grand total of 0% of the land.

The air rights could be purchased quite easily, and our own GO train driver Vegata Skyline has stated that it would not run into signalling issues like the cityplace bridge did.
 
innsertnamehere said:
no different than the fact that MGM is lobbying for an exhibition place casino, and that they own a grand total of 0% of the land.

The air rights could be purchased quite easily, and our own GO train driver Vegata Skyline has stated that it would not run into signalling issues like the cityplace bridge did.
Click to expand...

That's all fine and dandy, but until then, we might as well have a UD Nimbytect design over the tracks. As far as I'm concerned the park is not even part of this development until we hear of agreements with CN and GO.
 
As an out of towner, I personally think a casino would be great at this location. I also have a hunch that the fix is it. The Province of Ontario will force a casino onto the residents of Toronto whether you guys want it or not, despite their claims to the contrary (unless there is an election with a new party winning). I believe these public consultations are a farce to give the illusion of community feedback even though the decision has already been made in some smoke-filled backroom.

Now that you know where I stand, I'll also say that Oxford is almost certainly bluffing! There is no way all this development is contingent on a casino. Just my opinions and mine alone..
 
greenleaf said:
That's all fine and dandy, but until then, we might as well have a UD Nimbytect design over the tracks. As far as I'm concerned the park is not even part of this development until we hear of agreements with CN and GO.
Click to expand...

Regardless, a part of the park (at the very least) will be built. If you looked at the renderings and compared them to the site, it becomes obvious that the park isn't entirely on the tracks. A sizeable portion of it is actually on land owned by Oxford right next to Front St. That, combined with the fact that there already is a small "park" over the tracks near Blue Jays Way (just North of the Rogers Centre), and it becomes obvious that they've included a park in the proposal even if they don't get air rights over the tracks. So while I do agree that their promise is to build a park over the tracks, and I would be very disappointed if that does not happen, I believe that the public will get a park (or at least a parkette) regardless.

fedplanner said:
As an out of towner, I personally think a casino would be great at this location. I also have a hunch that the fix is it. The Province of Ontario will force a casino onto the residents of Toronto whether you guys want it or not, despite their claims to the contrary (unless there is an election with a new party winning). I believe these public consultations are a farce to give the illusion of community feedback even though the decision has already been made in some smoke-filled backroom.

Now that you know where I stand, I'll also say that Oxford is almost certainly bluffing! There is no way all this development is contingent on a casino. Just my opinions and mine alone..
Click to expand...

I may have agreed with you if the conservatives were in power. Sadly, the liberals (and specifically, Kathleen) is the premier.
 
It's pretty clear to me that there is a contingency plan for Oxford Place that does not include a casino. All this work hasn't been done to hinge it on shaky opinions at City Council and Oxford Properties is not going to sit on this kind of real estate and do nothing with it. The office and residential component will go ahead as planned and the convention centre space needs to be optimized to continue to attract business. Most or all of this proposal will go ahead with or without a casino. We just need to wait and let it run its course.
 
greenleaf said:
That's all fine and dandy, but until then, we might as well have a UD Nimbytect design over the tracks. As far as I'm concerned the park is not even part of this development until we hear of agreements with CN and GO.
Click to expand...

Believe what ever you like to believe, but the Oxford situation is in no way compatible to the Puente de Luz bridge. The two issues there were signal sight-line concerns and an obstinate city which did not want to pay for air rights that they did not own.

In this location there are no major sight line concerns since its a low speed zone with no high masts signals. And yes its as simple as that. There are minimal requirements that Transport Canada mandates for signal sight-lines. Provided the deck is a clear span, a overhead bridge is obviously not going to impede those requirements. In addition this is not something that will ever change since train speeds will always be limited due to safety concerns and the presence of slip switches in the area.

As for air rights, well isn't the whole point of air rights the ability to make a profit on an underutilized property? CN/metrolinx don't want to hold on to air rights ad infinitum, this is the type of thing they've been waiting for. Also CN is actually very easy to deal with when it comes to acquiring any property they don't need for operational requirements as long as they receive fair market value for it. As seen by the numerous track purchases(which are far more valuable than air rights) that they have made to metrolinx over the last couple of years. Lastly I'd imagine the folks over at Oxford realize they'll have to pay for something they don't actually own and won't come into any negotiations with the same arrogance that the city had; i.e. "we owe you nil".
 
Love the new rendering. I would do anything to see this thing be built. It would transform that area of Toronto. It would also "wow" tourists and be an architectural marvel, at least for Toronto's standards. It's a shame this thing will probably never fly. Here's what has to happen in order for this thing to be made a reality:

1) City council must approve a casino (this is a HUGE hurdle which will dealt with this year)

2) Oxford Place must be chosen as builder of the casino project (competing with at least 5 other big companies for the rights). I imagine this process will take 6+ months in itself.

3) Provincial politics must remain favorable for this type of development. Hudak's massive "common sense revolution 2.0" plan may cut off essential funding for Toronto infrastructure, transportation, etc.

4) Oxford would then have to submit final plans and have them approved by city council, hoping they don't butcher/alter it to the point where it is no loner striking.

Providing all this can be done... this thing could actually happen. Here's hoping lol
 
Last edited:
they'd be crazy not to approve this at least the design. use it for whatever casino or another mal. regardless it suits toronto and should stay as is. design wise. i havent seen a negative comment and have been serching for one. everyone not just here in this forum but in anywhere that talks about it seems to just love it. or like it alot. or think its a great idea. so.. fingers crossed.
i appologise my caps arnt working ill fix this asap.
 
If it shadows a place where one of the councillors spent time as a child, there's absolutely no chance of this thing getting approved ;)
 
DtTO said:
If it shadows a place where one of the councillors spent time as a child, there's absolutely no chance of this thing getting approved ;)
Click to expand...

Thank you for your wise, informative and insightful comment - balanced and mature - and taking your time to pop this thread for us to have the benefit of your wisdom. P.S. FYI - councillors is spelled with one 'l' - its 'councilors'.
 
AHK said:
Thank you for your wise, informative and insightful comment - balanced and mature - and taking your time to pop this thread for us to have the benefit of your wisdom. P.S. FYI - councillors is spelled with one 'l' - its councilors.
Click to expand...

What a weird post. He spelled "councillors" just fine, and made a perfectly legitimate jibe. The Internet makes people strange sometimes.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top