Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

[ADRM]

There's a few different things being discussed here that I think are becoming confused.

If the city buys the air rights then, yes, it would be the owner and would not have any obligations unless there was something unusual in the sale agreement.

If the city were to pursue an alternate arrangement to try to get private, non-philanthropic financial support - as has been repeatedly suggested on this forum - development charges of some sort (potentially including s. 37 considerations) could come into play. It should be noted, though, that the s. 37 formula would net only a tiny percentage of the required funds for such a project.

Metrolinx doesn't own very much land along this stretch, so some combination of the above will need to occur (even if the ratio is 1:0).

Quite simply, this is a fantastically expensive proposed project and there is no quick or simple path to financing it.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

out with the airwater.

...I know air is considered a fluid for physics purposes, but...

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.

This is spot on. Some of us (UT'ers or otherwise) have been quite cynical about this proposal from the start because there is no cost or funding plan attached. And we are developing a track record of infrastructure void of bold city building (such as 21 acre structures that are 100% parkland) and full of compromise (condos with small little public squares next to them). Maybe this would be feasible if private money was floating it, and we could push the parkland/developed ratio higher than we could otherwise. But building an expansive 100% park with taxpayer money? Putting that in front of an amalgamated Toronto city council is going to be a circus.

If this were Metro Toronto though, I would have full confidence this would happen.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

If this were Metro Toronto though, I would have full confidence this would happen.

Considering Metro's record, I wouldn't even count on that.

AoD

 

[salsa]

City staff give very early estimate of $581M for construction of rail deck park. To do full 21 acres plus ventilation, landscaping, project costs, staff estimate $1.02B (excluding air rights)

An initial budget of $2.43M is needed to support initial work on park plan, consultants next year. More details: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.EX17.1

 

[ADRM]

City staff give very early estimate of $581M for construction of rail deck park. To do full 21 acres plus ventilation, landscaping, project costs, staff estimate $1.02B (excluding air rights)

An initial budget of $2.43M is needed to support initial work on park plan, consultants next year. More details: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2016.EX17.1

I can already hear Dougie droning on about downtown-elitist-created-gravy-trains. So shrill.

 

[TOareaFan]

^is it your contention that no one should be able to question a $1B expenditure at all?

 

[ADRM]

^is it your contention that no one should be able to question a $1B expenditure at all?

I was simply predicting the most predictable of Toronto municipal political events.

 

[TOareaFan]

I was simply predicting the most predictable of Toronto municipal political events.

shouldn't there be a healthy debate about this expenditure though?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hey there is a letter of support from TD VP Community Support, so I guess the expectation of some private philanthropy is probably reasonable.

shouldn't there be a healthy debate about this expenditure though?

Sure, though I am not sure how healthy any debate involving the Ford-Mammo axis is in general.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

shouldn't there be a healthy debate about this expenditure though?

Always. But, do you really think Doug Ford is a helpful or healthy contributor to that debate?

 

[ADRM]

Hey there is a letter of support from TD VP Community Support, so I guess the expectation of some private philanthropy is probably reasonable.



Sure, though I am not sure how healthy any debate involving the Ford-Mammo axis is in general.

AoD

I've felt all along that the way Tory and co. presented this was really rather deplorable, but I actually don't think it's particularly unreasonable to expect private contributions to total a not-insignificant portion of the total cost.

 

[achender]

I can already hear Dougie droning on about downtown-elitist-created-gravy-trains. So shrill.

I feel as though train-gravy may be a more apt description of this project.
(One which I would love to see built!)

 

[ADRM]

I feel as though train-gravy may be a more apt description of this project.
(One which I would love to see built!)

I'd call it a creative - albeit, yes, expensive - potential solution to an already-present-and-growing, demographic change-induced quality of life problem.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'd call it a creative - albeit, yes, expensive - potential solution to an already-present-and-growing, demographic change-induced quality of life problem.

Actually I just call it downtowners demanding respect when it comes to greenspace. It's fairness, you know.

AoD

 

[TOareaFan]

Sure, though I am not sure how healthy any debate involving the Ford-Mammo axis is in general.

AoD

Always. But, do you really think Doug Ford is a helpful or healthy contributor to that debate?

Who knows....but I don't think it is particularly helpful to take the discussion in a tangent based on what we think they will say before they say anything.