News   Dec 20, 2024
 3.2K     11 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.1K     3 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 2K     0 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

So you've "saved" 20 acres or so that is currently in grass to pave over the other 100 acres. Smart move.
I think you misunderstand. It's the *Right of Passage* that's the issue. This is the case with the 'missing link' on the Humber Trail at the Weston rail bridge near Lawrence. There's a study (link not handy at this time) to putting it through, as the on-street diversion is not only dangerous, it shatters the experience. The trail has just been completed to St Phillips for one missing link.

It's not just a case of expropriating an 'easement', in many cases, it's re-establishing right of passage, especially along water-courses. It's not just the water itself, it's the valley, as defined by the Navigable Waters Act.
 
I could not find the rental agreements for these golf courses so I will take it at face value. And fyi...there are 10 privately owned golf courses most who own their land. There are 9 publically owned golf courses (city, TRCA, etc).

Golf courses provide another outdoor activity for citizens. I don't understand the dislike of it by the narrow minded politicians in the city.

Golf courses provide green spaces for animals. Not totally natural but a lot better than any other privately owned use of land. Golf courses need a certain amount of land to be viable. If you eliminate one hole on a golf course, the entire course shuts down. And then what? The course is sold to a private developer and the land not on floodplain will be converted to condos.

So you've "saved" 20 acres or so that is currently in grass to pave over the other 100 acres. Smart move.

As well you should (take my word) .... (I don't make up stuff like some posters....)

https://trca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ExecutiveCommittee05-16_Jul08_2016.pdf (page 12 of the TRCA's Ex. Cte agenda for July 8 of this year) .

The Flemingdon land issues came up in the East Don Trail EA process.

***

As for smart moves, the golf courses, in most cases, and certainly the ones I identified are, substantially within the floodplain, meaning there is little developable land.

The requirement is 10M from stable top of bank.

Additionally, many/most are also zoned open space/natural area, and there is no 'right to rezone' current development and OMB predispositions to one side.

***

The issue is not one of antagonism towards golf, the issues is one of subsidy towards private operators and their patrons, meeting the needs of very few people, particularly for non-public courses. (Property taxes have been help well below market for these courses for decades).

Which means its my dollars going to subsidize non-public, in many cases for-profit, operations.

I don't favour special low tax rates for spas/healthclubs or ski resorts either.

If one's focus is money, its a poor investment; if one's focus is equity, its a step backwards; if one's focus is outdoor activity for the greatest number of people, then golf flops there as well with a very inefficient use of land and finally its a step back for nature, in that the area is extensively mowed and typically lacks proper vegetative buffers and wildlife corridors along waterways.

Even for all of that, I didn't suggest shuttering all courses, just reducing the intrusion of them, strategically.
 
Golf courses provide green spaces for animals. Not totally natural but a lot better than any other privately owned use of land.
Golf courses typically require massive amounts of chemicals, both fertilizers and pesticides, in order to maintain their fairways and greens, as well as take a massive amount of water. They are by no means friendly to the surrounding environment.
 
I'd missed that! Just looked it up:
https://trca.ca/conservation/green-infrastructure/east-don-trail-environmental-assessment/

Another link that ostensibly is 'in the works' is to connect the water-edge trail from the Rouge River through to Bluffers Park, there's a segment missing below Guild Park.

That EA (Bluffers to East Point Park) is well underway, with preliminary recommendations having just had a comment period which closed in early July.


https://trca.ca/conservation/green-...terfront-project/public-consultation/#PIC-EA2

Once this EA is settled, assuming the project goes forward, another EA is planned for the Bluffers to RC Harris section of the Scarborough Waterfront.
 
Golf courses typically require massive amounts of chemicals, both fertilizers and pesticides, in order to maintain their fairways and greens, as well as take a massive amount of water. They are by no means friendly to the surrounding environment.
Absolutely, and beyond that, golf is a dying sport. (No wonder they added it to the desperate Olympics, doubtless there was money under the table)
Golfers are disappearing from public city courses. Should some be made into parks?

On Friday morning, Ryan Kong walked his large dog on a small strip of grass outside the fence of a giant — and empty — golf course.

Kong lives in Scarborough, Ont. in a house on the edge of the city-owned Dentonia Park Golf Course, which was closed for the season. He and his 138-pound dog, Hunter, were making do with the little bit of space available, on the other side of a firmly padlocked gate. Hunter needs lots of exercise: “a minimum of four or five hours a day,” Kong explained.

“It’s a waste of space as a golf course,” Kong said. “Golf is not just for affluent people, but it doesn’t serve the area and the demographics of the area around are people who live in apartment buildings. There’s a disconnect.”

As the years go by, Dentonia Park has seen fewer golfers, part of a wider trend across the Western world. As less people use municipal golf courses, Canadian cities have been forced to take a hard look at their future.

“As a public resource, it’s underused,” former councillor and Toronto mayoral candidate David Soknacki said of Dentonia Park.

When he was running for mayor, Soknacki argued for turning the course into a park.

Apartment towers loom over the golf course: the census tract they fall into has more native speakers of Bengali than English and nearly 600 children under the age of five. About a third of adult residents spent at least some time on welfare in 2010, tax data shows.

The apartment complex has two small fenced playgrounds.

“It could be repurposed to a number of uses, whether it would be a new combination of organized sports, soccer or cricket, or a combination of activities — everything from passive use to bicycle trails,” Soknacki says.

(“I would like to see a public amphitheatre,” Kong says.)

In 2011, Dentonia lost $242,000 and Scarlett Woods, in Toronto’s west end, made just $23,000, down from $99,000 in 2007. City of Toronto spokesperson Matthew Cutler could not provide more recent figures. From 2007 to 2011, Dentonia lost $822,000. (Other city public courses ran larger profits.)


Cutler did not respond to an interview request.

“While we appreciate that there may be valid reasons to continue to operate Dentonia Park, the reasons for doing so should be reviewed, articulated, documented and specifically approved,” auditors said in a 2011 report.

Golf has been in a steady decline across the Western world, including Britain and the United States, for years.

It’s not clear why. Commenters have called it too time-consuming and expensive, and pointed out that with men expected to take more responsibility for child care, fewer hours are available to be whiled away on a golf course.

Canadian golfers are about 70 per cent male, tend to be higher-income, and, the authors of a 2013 study note, “the current game reflects very little ethnic diversity.”

“It’s questionable to overplay the notion that the sport is entirely in decline,” says golf journalist Robert Thompson.

“I would say golf is flat. It’s certainly not growing.”

“I think the story is coloured by the fact that a lot of golf courses have closed, but they haven’t closed because of decline, but because they overbuilt golf courses. A lot of that is real estate-driven.”

With land values on the increase, many private club owners have taken the obvious step and cashed out.

Six large private clubs in Toronto’s suburbs have sold to developers in recent years, often facing furious pushback from local homeowners.

Thompson sees this as part of a normal cycle of real estate speculation, which has been going on for decades — investors buy rural land well in advance of development being approved, and run golf courses in the meantime. Eventually the bulldozers arrive.

“I don’t think those things are related to golf in decline as much as they are related to the value of real estate increasing. There have been dozens and dozens of golf courses that have disappeared in Toronto.”

At the same time, cities have debated the future of municipally-owned courses — in effect, large, fenced-off single-use public parks.

READ MORE: Proposal aims to turn Glen Abbey Golf Club into housing subdivision

In 2012, Vancouver mayor Gregor Robertson floated a proposal to turn parts of the city’s Langara golf course into housing, park space or both.

The idea angered local golfers.

At the time, former city councillor Aaron Jasper chaired Vancouver’s park board.

“We heard from people who said ‘Any kind of green space where I have to pay a fee to get into isn’t really public.’ We were open to discussions where we would be able to retain some portion of the golf activity, but also convert some parts of it to other public park uses,” Jasper remembers.

Perhaps inevitably, the proposal was derailed by angry pushback from local golfers.

“It muddied the waters, in terms of having an honest discussion about how much golf is enough.”

“That seems to be what happens in these cases,” Thompson reflects. “A politician raises the issue. Then they hold a public meeting, and one person comes out saying we should close it, and 150 people, very vocal, say ‘I come out and play this golf course – it’s very important to me.’ Then the politicians say ‘Oh, my,’ and leave it alone. I’ve seen that game played out a dozen times. ”
[...]
“When I was in Scotland, people like Ryan walked their dog while I was playing golf. It’s considered perfectly acceptable. It’s considered more multi-purpose. If you go to the Old Course in St Andrew’s — it’s actually municipally owned land as well, and people have access to it.”
http://globalnews.ca/news/2612990/a...ublic-courses-should-some-be-made-into-parks/

Golf courses would be wise indeed to court local favour by surrendering crucial rights of way before they're taken by court order.
 
As well you should (take my word) .... (I don't make up stuff like some posters....)

https://trca.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/ExecutiveCommittee05-16_Jul08_2016.pdf (page 12 of the TRCA's Ex. Cte agenda for July 8 of this year) .

The Flemingdon land issues came up in the East Don Trail EA process.

***

As for smart moves, the golf courses, in most cases, and certainly the ones I identified are, substantially within the floodplain, meaning there is little developable land.

The requirement is 10M from stable top of bank.

Additionally, many/most are also zoned open space/natural area, and there is no 'right to rezone' current development and OMB predispositions to one side.

***

The issue is not one of antagonism towards golf, the issues is one of subsidy towards private operators and their patrons, meeting the needs of very few people, particularly for non-public courses. (Property taxes have been help well below market for these courses for decades).

Which means its my dollars going to subsidize non-public, in many cases for-profit, operations.

I don't favour special low tax rates for spas/healthclubs or ski resorts either.

If one's focus is money, its a poor investment; if one's focus is equity, its a step backwards; if one's focus is outdoor activity for the greatest number of people, then golf flops there as well with a very inefficient use of land and finally its a step back for nature, in that the area is extensively mowed and typically lacks proper vegetative buffers and wildlife corridors along waterways.

Even for all of that, I didn't suggest shuttering all courses, just reducing the intrusion of them, strategically.

Very interesting. Thanks for the link. For Donalda layering onto Google Maps it looks like the property near Lawrence is not used by them (after the big reno a couple of years ago). The property by York Mills has 2 holes on it. Without it Donalda could not be a 18 hole course (and would go under). It's a mute point anyways. The contract was already expiring in 2035...and will be extended further. You can't break a lease without huge penalties so even if it is not extended we are talking 20 years from now before anything can happen.

Now "subsidizing" private operators. You mean a legal agreement reached 25+ years ago to defer property taxes as long as they don't redevelop the lands (the city wanted to maintain the green space)?

As for me I really don't care if its a private operator or public. Flemingdon park is $35 for 9 holes. Don Valley is $60 for 18. Pretty much the same price. We at least get some property tax from one of them. I don't know if we subsidize Don Valley or we make a profit....but we better be making more than the property taxes on Flemingdon Park!

Same with curling rinks, skating facilities, etc. I'd rather be subsiding a private operator less if the price is the same.

As for the rail park...i'm also all for private sponsorship and development on it. It's an urban park and if a sculpture has a tasteful logo beside it...it's better than no sculpture.
 
As for the rail park...i'm also all for private sponsorship and development on it.
It's the only way it's going to happen. My preference is that Metrolinx, for whatever portion it owns, retain it as a money-maker to offset costs rather than sell it. It also mean the Province can keep a hand in on transportation and public space usage for at least a portion of the green space. Due to the immense costs of doing this, at best it could be a PPI, if not completely private. That would entail the City zoning portions for residential intensification, but with offsets of park space. You can't get much closer to convenience than a major rail hub in your basement. And perhaps an airport on your roof!
 
Okay, here's an idea of what the rail deck might look like west of Bathurst. I've included point towers at the western end and on the north-west corner of a Bathurst and Front extension. Hopefully it creates a bit of that Central Park effect with towers surrounding the park. The lake in the middle is just one idea, but it gives new purpose to the heritage Bathurst bridge. If you'll indulge me, I've also incorporated off/on ramps from the western Gardiner and removed the elevated Gardiner east of Strachan. Fort York, the Garrison Point development, and all other city park, path, and pedestrian/cycling bridge plans are intact. You'll have to imagine the intermodal DRL/GO RER station underneath it
GardinerRemovalwithFrontExtensionandRailDeckPark2 copy.jpg
.
 

Attachments

  • GardinerRemovalwithFrontExtensionandRailDeckPark2 copy.jpg
    GardinerRemovalwithFrontExtensionandRailDeckPark2 copy.jpg
    172 KB · Views: 564
Last edited:
I can't believe your lack of imagination. Apart from the fact that you can't appreciate a concept for what the park and its surround might look like west of Bathurst, and that's without any consideration of highway modifications, you can't see any value in how this concept creates an almost continuous connection to the lake through the park extension, including restoring, to some degree, the open air approach to Fort York.
 
Pagliano's article excellent. She's done thorough research and many quotes worthy of discussion.

For now:
By rezoning the land as open space, the rail companies would no longer be able to sell off pieces of the air rights to developers, preventing any buildings over the corridor. And by limiting what can be developed over the corridor to parkland, the value of those air rights is likely to decrease.
Absolutely true, but it throws the baby out with the airwater.

Due to the City's dire lack of finance (contrary to Tory's endless enthusiasm for putting it on plastic) it must be accepted that the *owners* will be allowed to develop intensification over the rail corridor and yards, at least in part, with offsetting (Section 37, for instance) conditions, and that obviously being a *public* park, whether that be turned over to the City or not.

To think that the owners would just build a park and nothing else is naive to the n'th. Zoning as described would be the *starting point* to negotiations. Even the developers realize that to sell their product, a good piece of parkland must be part of the deal. The City's role will be to maximize that.

Certainly Tory has been successful in sparking this discussion. I wonder when it migrates farther down the tracks? The Mimico Yards (Willowbrook especially) are also ripe, at least in part. "Decking over" doesn't necessarily mean the whole thing. The edges, as in the case of the new Metrolinx RER maintenance and storage facility, can be built with decking facilitated, and potential uses above, right from the get-GO (Typo intentional). It would also ameliorate the "noise" issue, promote adjacent development (even if it is commercial) and provide needed park space too.

The conversation has begun...
 
Pagliano's article excellent. She's done thorough research and many quotes worthy of discussion.

For now:

Absolutely true, but it throws the baby out with the airwater.

Due to the City's dire lack of finance (contrary to Tory's endless enthusiasm for putting it on plastic) it must be accepted that the *owners* will be allowed to develop intensification over the rail corridor and yards, at least in part, with offsetting (Section 37, for instance) conditions, and that obviously being a *public* park, whether that be turned over to the City or not.

What owners?

Would the city not be the owner if they acquire the air rights? That's the point of air rights. This isn't going to be some POP parkette.
 
What owners?

The present ones, read the article linked, albeit Jennifer wasn't exactly right. Metrolinx also own a share of that, and TTR is not "transcontinental" it's a consortium of them to operate the Union Station trackage (and formerly the station itself before the City bought it, and now leases out).
 
The present ones, read the article linked, albeit Jennifer wasn't exactly right. Metrolinx also own a share of that, and TTR is not "transcontinental" it's a consortium of them to operate the Union Station trackage (and formerly the station itself before the City bought it, and now leases out).

Yeah, but the deal won't be that they get to develop buildings on top of it. That's why the first step is to ensure that it is zoned as parkland or open space or whatever. That will have to happen before any sort of purchase.

That's what I'd assume anyways.
 

Back
Top