Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

[W. K. Lis]

In the 1960's, high-rise apartments were built with playgrounds, green grass, and tennis courts surrounding it, usually with the garage underground. Unfortunately, that green grass is no longer being used as a park, though that was the original intent. Those tennis courts and playgrounds slowly disappeared. Residents didn't want "noise" from kids playing. They wanted "peace and quiet" instead.

Hence, the parks being situated away from them. The further the better, for some. Ditto with the small parkettes. There were some who objected to them, especially if they lived next door to them. It was better if they were located across the street, but "not in my backyard".

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Since we have little public money for this, a pragmatic approach would consider allowing some development along the edges of the new rail deck park, and using funds from that to buy air rights. Also, it seems reasonable to do the rail deck in stages. If it is seen as a long term incremental project that is paid for as they go, work can start soon near the Rogers Centre portions and work westward. Big projects like this will never get going unless we are willing to start small and pay as we go, but have a larger vision.

As nice as this park concept is for removing the impediment of the rail corridor by covering it, this part of the city is not the most starved for green space. Within a ten minute walk, there is Canoe Landing, Music Garden, Clarence Square, Victoria Park, Garrison Common, Little Norway Park, Ireland Park, HTO Park east and west, Roundhouse park, Under Gardiner-Bentway. I agree with Joe Cressy that areas like Richmond/John are deserving of a park (on that parking lot). Chinatown/Baldwin Village area could also benefit from a new park. I wouldn't want to put all our money for downtown parks into the raildeck park. As nice as NYC's Central Park is, it is partly a response to the terrible job that city did of creating green spaces south of it. I'd rather have decent sized parks in every neighbourhood than focus our limited resources on one giant park.

I will be very, very careful with the incremental, development to fund park approach - historically the record is mixed (e.g. Downsivew Park), and the park component have a tendency of getting eroded. Not to say that it is a bad idea - particularly when it comes to the potential of development animating the space, but be careful.

As to the small/medium over large approach - it ignores the utility - i.e. cross-barrier function of this park - and there are things you can do with a large open spaces that you simply couldn't with smaller ones. A properly designed park can also be a regional attraction in its' own right.

AoD

 

[P23]

I'm not sure about residential, but I'd love to see some restaurants with large patios fronting the park. Maybe with some offices above.

 

[gweed123]

I'm not sure about residential, but I'd love to see some restaurants with large patios fronting the park. Maybe with some offices above.

The south side of the park would be ideal for that, since there's no defined street edge on that side, but rather just the edge of the development. Build a row of 1 or 2 storey structures immediately to the north of the CityPlace development, fronting onto a pedestrian promenade, which would form the defacto "south street" of the park. There would be breaks in the development at each N-S connector street from CityPlace. I think it could have a nice "Boardwalk" kind of feel to it, with restaurants on one side and the park on the other.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Wonder if the rail deck could be extended north over Front Street? If some developer decides to have a plaza around some development on the north side of Front Street, they could extend a bridge or deck over Front Street to connect with the park.

 

[Northern Light]

Latest article on the controversy over who actually owns the air rights, in today's Star.

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...ir-that-rail-deck-park-would-be-built-on.html

 

[steveintoronto]

Latest article on the controversy over who actually owns the air rights, in today's Star.

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...ir-that-rail-deck-park-would-be-built-on.html

The term "premature announcement" immediately comes to mind. City staff don't even know the facts, and yet Tory, Keesmaat, Cressy el al are announcing this as a fait accompli.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The term "premature announcement" immediately comes to mind. City staff don't even know the facts, and yet Tory, Keesmaat, Cressy el al are announcing this as a fait accompli.

On the other hand, nothing wrong with that - beats talking about it in the backroom - the war won't be won there.

AoD

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

Councillor Joe Cressy, whose ward encompasses the proposed park space, said Craft came to meet him with a proposal for seven to 10 “giant” condos built on a deck over the rail corridor, which would include a small park.

sounds different to the proposal I saw

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

sounds different to the proposal I saw

I wonder where the site is - what they *could* potentially do is built atop the new Union reliever along the lines of how it's done in Asia (particularly Japan and Hong Kong) or Sagrera station in Barcelona.

AoD

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Latest article on the controversy over who actually owns the air rights, in today's Star.

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...ir-that-rail-deck-park-would-be-built-on.html

Does that seem shady or what? Some guy comes along and says he is part of a consortium that owns the air rights, a councillor says this guy has made this argument before without evidence. When the Star asks both TTR/CN and the guy for proof, they provide no further comment.

I highly doubt that TTR/CN would be laying claim to these rights if they didn't own them, at least in majority. I think best case scenario for this consortium, maybe they own a piece, or secured some agreement-in-principle. Either way, it sounds like legal arguments in the making, and the City just triggered a landmine of court proceedings.

Slow clap to Tory and Keesmat.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Does that seem shady or what? Some guy comes along and says he is part of a consortium that owns the air rights, a councillor says this guy has made this argument before without evidence. When the Star asks both TTR/CN and the guy for proof, they provide no further comment.

I highly doubt that TTR/CN would be laying claim to these rights if they didn't own them, at least in majority. I think best case scenario for this consortium, maybe they own a piece, or secured some agreement-in-principle. Either way, it sounds like legal arguments in the making, and the City just triggered a landmine of court proceedings.

Slow clap to Tory and Keesmat.

I don't doubt TTR/CN owns those rights - but at the same time, to sell it with the assumption that you can build on top of it without going through the city approval process is BS as well. You can't begin to have a discussion without laying all the plans on the table. Do you rather see them pop up with a public proposal and then have the city claim that what wanted is to have park there all long instead?

AoD

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

to sell it with the assumption that you can build on top of it without going through the city approval process is BS as well.

It is BS, but I wouldn't put it past any private company to try if they felt the guys across the table were drinking kool-aid.

 

[Cobra]

All the city has to do is to rezone it so nothing can be built besides a park and those air rights would drop in value, right?

 

[narduch]

All the city has to do is to rezone it so nothing can be built besides a park and those air rights would drop in value, right?

And then it will go to the OMB, where they will end up allowing whatever the developer wants.