News   May 21, 2024
2444 Yonge Street Adds Height Via Minor Variance While Excavation Advances
 1.2K     0 
News   May 21, 2024
News Roundup for May 21, 2024
 642     0 
News   May 21, 2024
Into the Mist
 488     0 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

As to the extent of any 'park' over rail lines, it's a moot point to talk of (gist) "where the City should put it"...since the City has no money to establish one, and is unlikely to have any time in the near future.

What should/will determine where it happens, with Council's changing the zoning bylaws to accommodate, is where *private enterprise* wants to build it. The City then dictates the trade-offs and terms of doing it, which will/should be extensive parkland open to the public. To think that the entire space can be parkland is beyond fantasy.

The urban density is also most apt to be concentrated adjacent/over that corridor. We can all win on this as soon as the dialog becomes sensible.
 
Palma said:
what about the west end? Does the city not exist west of Spadina?
Click to expand...

rail-deck-park-renderings2.jpg.size.custom.crop.850x550.jpg


The plans are for the Rail Deck Park to reach Bathurst Street, across the street from Fort York, and north of the planned Mouth of the Creek Park. See link.

urbantoronto-8838-30047.jpg

2367560415_9e2f3a74cf.jpg
 
steveintoronto said:
As to the extent of any 'park' over rail lines, it's a moot point to talk of (gist) "where the City should put it"...since the City has no money to establish one, and is unlikely to have any time in the near future.

What should/will determine where it happens, with Council's changing the zoning bylaws to accommodate, is where *private enterprise* wants to build it. The City then dictates the trade-offs and terms of doing it, which will/should be extensive parkland open to the public. To think that the entire space can be parkland is beyond fantasy.

The urban density is also most apt to be concentrated adjacent/over that corridor. We can all win on this as soon as the dialog becomes sensible.
Click to expand...
I might be misinterpreting your post, but the city does have the money to build the rail deck park, or a large portion of the money anyway. Developers in Toronto, like all Ontario municipalities, must either include a park or a cash contribution to the city in lieu of a park. By all accounts that has added up to hundreds of millions of dollars that can only be used for parkland. The fund is entirely coming from private developers, so in a sense private enterprise will be paying for a substantial amount of the park. There will probably be Section 37 contributions as well, which are separate from the cash in lieu of parkland fund.

Nothing about this proposal is fantasy. Even if no funding comes from other sources, the parkland fund and Section 37 contributions from nearby developments (like the Well) could pay for a scaled back version of the park.
 
dowlingm said:
I hate when people say "it's not the thing I oppose, but the cost. It could cost less." Unless those people can say *why* it should cost less, in respect of how it could be done differently while achieving at least as good an end goal, it's just a different way of saying "it doesn't benefit me so it shouldn't benefit anyone".
Click to expand...
It should cost more. I would say $5000 / m2 x 23 ha = $1.15B - and that's just for the structure. The ventilation costs would likely add another $300M to $500M.
 
MisterF said:
I might be misinterpreting your post, but the city does have the money to build the rail deck park, or a large portion of the money anyway.
Click to expand...
We only wish. What you project is what I'm stating. *When* proposals to develop the land via re-zoning occurs, "offsets" (read what I posted earlier, and it's not just Section 37, which is specific) can stipulate a good amount of the land is given over to park, either held by the developers as a consortium, that is open to the public, but maintained in perpetuity of ownership, or turned over to the city. Chicago couldn't afford to upkeep Millennium Park, how is Toronto going to afford one even larger with a lower tax base?

Best you read this:
PARKS IN CRISIS part 3: The perils of cash-in-lieu
April 15, 2015 | By John Lorinc
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2015/04/15/parks-crisis-perils-cash-lieu/

And this:
[“There currently are not enough funds in city cash-in-lieu of parkland reserves to fund all needs,” staff wrote in a report ahead of the upcoming government management committee meeting.]
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2016/09/05/can-the-city-fund-two-new-downtown-parks.html

And this:
City's rail-deck park dream depends on securing air rights
Mayor’s proposal hinges on negotiations with rail companies, but Vancouver has important fight in court.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...ark-dream-depends-on-securing-air-rights.html

And this:
https://thislandisparkland.com/2016...-for-downtown-toronto-the-trouble-with-money/

So please point me to reference as per "City already has funds" (or a large portion of it anyway)

steveintoronto said:
What should/will determine where it happens, with Council's changing the zoning bylaws to accommodate, is where *private enterprise* wants to build it. The City then dictates the trade-offs and terms of doing it, which will/should be extensive parkland open to the public. To think that the entire space can be parkland is beyond fantasy.
Click to expand...

Meantime, in the Windy City:
Millennium Park Costing City Millions in Maintenance
by Prescott Carlson in News on Oct 23, 2008 4:00 pm

crownfountainfisheye.jpg
While the $8.1 million in yearly costs for the day-to-day upkeep of Millennium Park seems high, it isn't that surprising. Hell, they probably spend $1 million just on Windex for the Bean. The real shocker probably unknown to most Chicagoans is that it wasn't supposed to cost anything at all. Similar to the Buckingham Fountain Endowment Fund, Millennium Park maintenance was supposed to be funded by a conservancy paid for by private donors. But unlike Buckingham Fountain, the conservancy was not backed by any real dollars, but rather empty pledges. And once donors learned that keeping Millennium Park looking spiffy involved just a bit more than cutting the grass, they bailed:

"People who raised a lot of money for the art were gonna become a conservancy, and they were gonna run the park. They discovered very soon that it was not possible to run the park. They had not taken in all the money even today . . . and it costs a fortune," [Cultural Affairs Commissioner Lois] Weisberg said.
Weisberg -- citing New York's Central Park as an example -- also stated that it could be 20 years or more before a conservancy could be put together. So in the meantime, costs are coming straight out of the city's hotel tax revenue -- revenue that many would argue needs to be spent elsewhere. The 9th Ward's Anthony Beale wants it for "his" parks:

"It looks great. Don’t get me wrong. But I guarantee if you gave me $8 million, my parks would look great, too. . . . My parks look horrible. I can barely get the grass cut on time. But we’re spending $8 million [so that a park] for people outside the city will look great to them. If they came into the inner communities, they won’t have the same outlook on our parks."
Or, you know, maybe put it towards balancing Chicago's budget. [S-T]
Click to expand...
http://chicagoist.com/2008/10/23/millennium_park_costing_city_millio.php
 
Last edited:
Why is it that Hudson Yards is almost unspoken in this thread? Urban Tor mentioned it along with Millennium Park in their cover story. Readers might be a little taken aback that Hudson Yards is nearly one half open public space and parkland, and yet totally privately funded, one of the the two major developers being OMERS. (Sound familiar? Oxford Properties ring a bell?)
http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/discover/parks-and-open-space/

OMERS, officially the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, is a pension fund created by statute in 1962 to handle the retirement benefits of local government employees in the Canadian province of Ontario.Wikipedia

I'm far from being here to ring their bell, but they have cash...mounds of it. Many Cdn pension plans do. They're *looking* to invest. Static cash actually loses value in the low interest rate environment.

Gee...you'd think Tory could do a little brown-shoe shuffle or two...perhaps he can/will when he starts talking sensibly. Then again, maybe not. Getting back to those un-cooled subway cars...
 
BurlOak said:
It should cost more. I would say $5000 / m2 x 23 ha = $1.15B - and that's just for the structure. The ventilation costs would likely add another $300M to $500M.
Click to expand...
There's a number of hidden costs, massive ones, yet to show. So far, this is meant as a distraction, and it seems to be working. "Oh look! Defici...whoops...Squirrel! In the new park we're building!"

If it isn't the latest transit fantasy, it's decking over the present transportation corridors. Getting back to SmartTrack...."Another squirrel, over there...errr...under the Gardiner...errr...in the park that we're building under it!"
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
Why is it that Hudson Yards is almost unspoken in this thread? Urban Tor mentioned it along with Millennium Park in their cover story. Readers might be a little taken aback that Hudson Yards is nearly one half open public space and parkland, and yet totally privately funded, one of the the two major developers being OMERS. (Sound familiar? Oxford Properties ring a bell?)
http://www.hudsonyardsnewyork.com/discover/parks-and-open-space/

OMERS, officially the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, is a pension fund created by statute in 1962 to handle the retirement benefits of local government employees in the Canadian province of Ontario.Wikipedia

I'm far from being here to ring their bell, but they have cash...mounds of it. Many Cdn pension plans do. They're *looking* to invest. Static cash actually loses value in the low interest rate environment.

Gee...you'd think Tory could do a little brown-shoe shuffle or two...perhaps he can/will when he starts talking sensibly. Then again, maybe not. Getting back to those un-cooled subway cars...
Click to expand...

Yeah but they have mounds of cash with the expectations of new builds recouperating it. Not sure if that can be applied to the entire stretch of the corridor - the closest analogue would probably be the Oxford/MTCC stretch.

In any case, the urgency isn't getting the sucker built - it is planning for it so that no one does anything particularly stupid to preempt that idea. You know, preventing missteps like how the original intentions around the waterfront.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Not sure if that can be applied to the entire stretch of the corridor - the closest analogue would probably be the Oxford/MTCC stretch.
Click to expand...
I noted that researching my comments, even on Google, two locations for Oxford show directly adjacent on the north side of the area being discussed.

It's so obvious that it's conspicuous by not being a game in play at this time...or isn't it? Maybe the other shoe, the expensive one, is about to drop? OMERS might be playing a waiting game. There might be talks going on with other pension funds to present a consortium on building the deck, but then to propose development individually on parts of it. Everyone knows that the value of that development will be optimized if at least half of the space proximal is open and/or parkland. That's just good development practice.

There must be a much larger story that just hasn't outed yet. Totally agree on 'The Wall That Blocks The Lakefront'. Wang and Danszky was a shitty band, with no hits. Impossible to dance to.
 
steveintoronto said:
I noted that researching my comments, even on Google, two locations for Oxford show directly adjacent on the north side of the area being discussed.

It's so obvious that it's conspicuous by not being a game in play at this time...or isn't it? Maybe the other shoe, the expensive one, is about to drop? OMERS might be playing a waiting game. There might be talks going on with other pension funds to present a consortium on building the deck, but then to propose development individually.

There must be a much larger story that just hasn't outed yet. Totally agree on 'The Wall That Blocks The Lakefront'. Wang and Danszky was a shitty band, with no hits. Impossible to dance to.
Click to expand...

Considering that the deck was in the Foster/casino plans, it's probably still in the play - and gives the city an out from having to do that stretch.

As to the "mistake by the lake" - it's less so about the particulars but the trajectory the city would have taken if the intention to have the waterfront area as a park was followed through back the late 19th c. Not to say that any strip of green is all that desirable by default, but it's just one of these "what-ifs"

AoD
 
steveintoronto said:
We only wish. What you project is what I'm stating. *When* proposals to develop the land via re-zoning occurs, "offsets" (read what I posted earlier, and it's not just Section 37, which is specific) can stipulate a good amount of the land is given over to park, either held by the developers as a consortium, that is open to the public, but maintained in perpetuity of ownership, or turned over to the city. Chicago couldn't afford to upkeep Millennium Park, how is Toronto going to afford one even larger with a lower tax base?

Best you read this:
PARKS IN CRISIS part 3: The perils of cash-in-lieu
April 15, 2015 | By John Lorinc
http://spacing.ca/toronto/2015/04/15/parks-crisis-perils-cash-lieu/

And this:
[“There currently are not enough funds in city cash-in-lieu of parkland reserves to fund all needs,” staff wrote in a report ahead of the upcoming government management committee meeting.]
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2016/09/05/can-the-city-fund-two-new-downtown-parks.html

And this:
City's rail-deck park dream depends on securing air rights
Mayor’s proposal hinges on negotiations with rail companies, but Vancouver has important fight in court.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...ark-dream-depends-on-securing-air-rights.html

And this:
https://thislandisparkland.com/2016...-for-downtown-toronto-the-trouble-with-money/

So please point me to reference as per "City already has funds" (or a large portion of it anyway)



Meantime, in the Windy City:

http://chicagoist.com/2008/10/23/millennium_park_costing_city_millio.php
Click to expand...

Here is a blog post with some of the implications of a recently overturned OMB case, and what it means for parks and municipal planning in the GTA (with a comparison drawn to the Rail Deck Park).

tl;dr if Toronto was able to set aside the same amount of land elsewhere (i.e. not over the USRC), instead of constantly banking cash in lieu and building the Rail Deck Park, it would cost $157-256 million less in capital cost. That doesn't include securement of air rights or maintenance.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top