Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

[ProjectEnd]

Didn't see this posted yet. Forgive me if it already has been:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...eeds-to-work-with-developers/article31936604/

 

[marcus_a_j]

And here's an article penned by Councillor Cressy on Torontoist:

http://torontoist.com/2016/09/joe-cressy-rail-deck-park-op-ed/

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Didn't see this posted yet. Forgive me if it already has been:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...eeds-to-work-with-developers/article31936604/

As it happens, one group of developers has approached the city with just such a plan. Led by Craft Development Corp., they have in mind an ambitious mixed-use project that would include residential, office and retail buildings as well as six to eight acres of park and public space. They say they have commissioned engineering studies, hired an architect to produce drawings and approached the city to lay out their plans, although they are not ready to unveil them publicly yet.

6-8 acres? That's a lot less than what was proposed (though it is unclear whether we are comparing apples to oranges). We will need to see a lot more details than backroom dealings on this one.

AoD

 

[the lemur]

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".

As for Scarborough being the touchstone for people who never get anything, northern Etobicoke could make the same case but for some reason their leading political family has spent a lot of time worrying about the opposite end of the city.

It's really about perspective, but not in an honest way: your idea costs way too much; my version of the same thing costs less, based on no details at all, therefore the price is right, AND it'll be done quicker, etc.

Even if this is funded (mostly) by some combination of developer money and good old philanthropy, it's not hard to wonder why this project is suddenly so important when other issues really need money, such as community housing.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's really about perspective, but not in an honest way: your idea costs way too much; my version of the same thing costs less, based on no details at all, therefore the price is right, AND it'll be done quicker, etc.

Even if this is funded (mostly) by some combination of developer money and good old philanthropy, it's not hard to wonder why this project is suddenly so important when other issues really need money, such as community housing.

Because you really can't use park monies for community housing?

AoD

 

[the lemur]

Because you really can't use park monies for community housing?

Well, yeah ... but the bigger picture is that the city appears to be making projects like this a priority.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

6-8 acres? That's a lot less than what was proposed (though it is unclear whether we are comparing apples to oranges). We will need to see a lot more details than backroom dealings on this one.

AoD

It's a completely different proposal from what I remember seeing back earlier this year.

 

[MisterF]

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

I'm not sure how any of those articles contradict what I said. The Spacing article confirms that the city collected $142 million in a 3 year period in 3 wards alone. So it stands to reason that hundreds of millions of dollars are indeed available. And that quote in the staff report is nothing new either. It simply states that the fund doesn't cover the full costs of all the parks they want to build. I acknowledged that right in my last post.

The Spacing article is a bit bizarre to be honest. The angle seems to be that developments should generally include a park instead of contributing money. With that logic we'd end up with hundreds of tiny parkettes in random locations all over downtown that would be of little use to anyone. A new park doesn't always make sense with a new development, especially those with small footprints downtown. Parks have to be well thought out in terms of location, size and design to be the amenities they're supposed to be. That's why the cash in lieu of parkland concept was created in the first place.

 

[bobbob911]

6-8 acres? That's a lot less than what was proposed (though it is unclear whether we are comparing apples to oranges). We will need to see a lot more details than backroom dealings on this one.

AoD

I find this whole thing a little silly - Jen Keesmaat's no compromise attitude is not helpful here. Why do we specifically need no less than 21 acres of new "parkland" downtown? Why is one large "faux park" better then lots of small to medium sized green spaces diffused throughout downtown? Let's be honest, this is never going to feel remotely natural, it will be all horticultural. Might as well simply mandate that all new condo roofs must be 100% "faux park", you would get all of the same benefit for downtown residents.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I find this whole thing a little silly - Jen Keesmaat's no compromise attitude is not helpful here. Why do we specifically need no less than 21 acres of new "parkland" downtown? Why is one large "faux park" better then lots of small to medium sized green spaces diffused throughout downtown? Let's be honest, this is never going to feel remotely natural, it will be all horticultural. Might as well simply mandate that all new condo roofs must be 100% "faux park", you would get all of the same benefit for downtown residents.

It's hard to compromise without an understand of what's being offered (from my perspective).

In any case, re: small/medium vs. large - isn't that partly the problem - that you can't build much green space (even medium sized ones) without breaking the bank? And all parks are "faux" and unnatural anyways - you are in an urban environment afterall - and a large, manicured, blatantly unnatural park is exactly what the city lacks.

AoD

 

[bobbob911]

It's hard to compromise without an understand of what's being offered (from my perspective).

In any case, re: small/medium vs. large - isn't that partly the problem - that you can't build much green space (even medium sized ones) without breaking the bank? And all parks are "faux" and unnatural anyways - you are in an urban environment afterall - and a large, manicured, blatantly unnatural park is exactly what the city lacks.

AoD

My assumption there - admittedly, I could be wrong - is that it would be significantly cheaper to procure land to develop many smaller green spaces then it would be to "engineer" new land overtop of the railways. I also don't see the particular value of a single contiguous piece of parkland here - surely it would only be of incremental benefit to those who live directly adjacent to it? There is no shortage of green space "near" downtown - for example High Park, Trinity Bellwoods, and the Islands, as well as many Waterfront initiatives such as Corktown Commons and the upcoming Ontario Place revitalization.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

6-8 acres? That's a lot less than what was proposed (though it is unclear whether we are comparing apples to oranges).

I'm wondering if this is an honest mistake. I thought it was 6-8 hectares...

edit: the article now says "The 21 acres the park would cover – ". Still butchered but at least the units are straightened out. I'm assuming that's where "6-8 acres" came from?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

My assumption there - admittedly, I could be wrong - is that it would be significantly cheaper to procure land to develop many smaller green spaces then it would be to "engineer" new land overtop of the railways. I also don't see the particular value of a single contiguous piece of parkland here - surely it would only be of incremental benefit to those who live adjacent to it? There is no shortage of green space "near" downtown - for example High Park and the Islands, as well as many Waterfront initiatives such as Corktown Commons and the upcoming Ontario Place revitalization.

As indicated in the news around parkland acquisition, probably not. As to the value of a large contiguous green space - something the size of high park right in the core is probably revolutionary - and unlike the other examples you have cited, it also resolves a gap in the urban fabric.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm wondering if this is an honest mistake. I thought it was 6-8 hectares...

edit: the article now says "The 21 acres the park would cover – ". Still butchered but at least the units are straightened out.

Nope I think the private proposal was cited as 6-8 acres, and the 21 acres refers to the city proposal.

AoD

 

[bobbob911]

As indicated in the news around parkland acquisition, probably not. As to the value of a large contiguous green space - something the size of high park right in the core is probably revolutionary - and unlike the other examples you have cited, it also resolves a gap in the urban fabric.

AoD

It would be revolutionary, and it would be awesome, I don't dispute that. But if the stated goal is to provide useful green space for the massive amount of new condo-dwellers that will be flooding the downtown over the next 25 years, IMO I don't think a single central space is the best way to do that. Anyone living more than a couple of blocks away is only going to be marginally serviced in the ways that livable green spaces are used for (walk the dog, kids at the playground, etc etc)