News   Nov 25, 2024
Work Advances at Line 5 Condos Near Yonge and Mount Pleasant
 423     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
Pinnacle Resubmission Bumps Heights of Lakeside Project at Sherbourne and Lake Shore
 667     0 
News   Nov 25, 2024
Toronto’s Construction Boom: Prioritizing Worker Safety in High-Risk Environments
 388     0 

Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

generalcanada said:
theres 2 things in that statement.
1. the city can kinda say whatever they want in terms of dev approvals OLT appeals aside.
2. spadina go is a certainty, its going to happen, its only doing barrie line only though. thats the reason why its a non-priority project. probably will happen during or after go expansion.

The reason why theyre doing the reset IMO is that they see the public opposition to it, and the original design was simply so that they could say theyre using the land and prevent the city from blocking them from building.
Now that the courts say the city cant zone it entirely as parkland, theyre going back to the drawing board to do a more detailed design and to shut the community up so they can get their dev approval

from the original design they remove 2 towers and say heres some more parkland. Thats my guess
Click to expand...
As I noted in the ORCA thread - I also suspect they'll remove the (very large) parking garage, reducing the construction cost and improving the quality of the parkland.
 
turini2 said:
As I noted in the ORCA thread - I also suspect they'll remove the (very large) parking garage, reducing the construction cost and improving the quality of the parkland.
Click to expand...
The only parking required should be for contractors, deliveries, and emergency vehicles. There is TTC, Wheel-Trans, GO/UPX, and taxis for most of the rest.

No minimum parking in Toronto. Would allow for some visitor parking and share-ride facilities.
 
Last edited:
allengeorge said:
www.theglobeandmail.com

Could Toronto get a big park from a grand compromise with developers?

At a public meeting next week, developers will unveil their idea to partner with the city and build as many as 6,000 homes and 4.5 hectares of parkland over Toronto’s downtown rail corridor
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...
so the devs want the city to contribute 700mil for the decking? and then the city doesnt even own anything cmon they cant be serious. the city might as well buy it out for that price. the only way this works is if the city owns the park.
For this they want a sizable contribution from the city: $765-million to help build the deck that would hold up the neighbourhood. The developers say this would be partly balanced by payments for city land. Expect haggling.
Click to expand...
 
allengeorge said:
www.theglobeandmail.com

Could Toronto get a big park from a grand compromise with developers?

At a public meeting next week, developers will unveil their idea to partner with the city and build as many as 6,000 homes and 4.5 hectares of parkland over Toronto’s downtown rail corridor
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com
Click to expand...

Interesting article............hampered by the fact the developers have yet to show their new idea to @AlexBozikovic ; not his fault of course, it just makes any judgement impossible til we see the substance here.

But let me bring forward a couple of excerpts of Alex' piece that do give us some idea of what's being thought of here.

"The developers who own the air rights say the city can split the difference. At a public meeting next week, they will unveil their idea to partner with the city and build as many as 6,000 homes, a sizable percentage at below-market pricing, and 4.5 hectares of parkland.

That is half the 8.5 hectaresthat Toronto’s government had imagined as Rail Deck Park. But it comes with a lot of housing (which the city needs) and truckloads of private capital to make it happen."

****

"For this they want a sizable contribution from the city: $765-million to help build the deck that would hold up the neighbourhood. The developers say this would be partly balanced by payments for city land. Expect haggling."

****

"The developers say their new scheme – which they wouldn’t show me yet – folds in some pieces of public land to create more gradual slopes, and eliminates much of the parking garage space that made the Safdie scheme so bulky and impenetrable."
Click to expand...

****

The housing component is of value here.

I'm less excited about any park sitting on a deck; better than nothing, but far from ideal.

Alex raises the idea that perhaps some of the money for park development would be better directed at the University Park proposal; I think that's an entirely reasonable idea.

The shortcoming of the UP proposal is room for sports fields, and that's the one think that a park over a deck would be apt at, since there are no trees (or just a few on the edges) to rip out when you need to re-do the deck membranes in 30-40 years.
Perhaps focusing on the University Park idea as signature park space; while the Rail Deck delivers 2 new soccer pitches or the like might be the way to go.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Interesting article............hampered by the fact the developers have yet to show their new idea to @AlexBozikovic ; not his fault of course, it just makes any judgement impossible til we see the substance here.

But let me bring forward a couple of excerpts of Alex' piece that do give us some idea of what's being thought of here.



****

The housing component is of value here.

I'm less excited about any park sitting on a deck; better than nothing, but far from ideal.

Alex raises the idea that perhaps some of the money for park development would be better directed at the University Park proposal; I think that's an entirely reasonable idea.

The shortcoming of the UP proposal is room for sports fields, and that's the one think that a park over a deck would be apt at, since there are no trees (or just a few on the edges) to rip out when you need to re-do the deck membranes in 30-40 years.
Perhaps focusing on the University Park idea as signature park space; while the Rail Deck delivers 2 new soccer pitches or the like might be the way to go.
Click to expand...
Agreed on the sports fields being part of any Rail Deck Park. IMO, too many people continually ignore the serious lack of sports fields in downtown. We need to be seriously considering that when we talk about any sort of large park in or around downtown.
 
TossYourJacket said:
Agreed on the sports fields being part of any Rail Deck Park. IMO, too many people continually ignore the serious lack of sports fields in downtown. We need to be seriously considering that when we talk about any sort of large park in or around downtown.
Click to expand...

I admit, I'm not an athlete, but I feel like sports fields in a premier location will hurt those looking for "soft recreation" like throwing a frisbee or picnicking. Also, sports fields tend to lack trees, and if its natural turf, are usually horrifical maintained. There is also the issue of public access vs. private permits which could impact the enjoyment of the space for all.

Did I mention I'm not an athlete lol?
 
mjl08 said:
I admit, I'm not an athlete, but I feel like sports fields in a premier location will hurt those looking for "soft recreation" like throwing a frisbee or picnicking. Also, sports fields tend to lack trees, and if its natural turf, are usually horrifical maintained. There is also the issue of public access vs. private permits which could impact the enjoyment of the space for all.

Did I mention I'm not an athlete lol?
Click to expand...

The argument is not for 'sports fields only'

I'm not an athlete either.

But I recognize the need for this type of offering.

The no trees point is crucial in discussing any park over a deck which will, every few decades need to be scraped clean to make repairs and re-do membranes.

There is absolutely a need for other park-types, focused on culture, art, formal spaces, informal play areas, playgrounds and nature amongst other things.

Most of those are better suited to being on terra-ferma (not a stratified deck).

The 3 best applications for deck space are those which would have minimal mature vegetation. Sports fields, Dogs-off-leash areas, and Community Gardens.
 
Northern Light said:
Interesting article............hampered by the fact the developers have yet to show their new idea to @AlexBozikovic ; not his fault of course, it just makes any judgement impossible til we see the substance here.

But let me bring forward a couple of excerpts of Alex' piece that do give us some idea of what's being thought of here.



****

The housing component is of value here.

I'm less excited about any park sitting on a deck; better than nothing, but far from ideal.

Alex raises the idea that perhaps some of the money for park development would be better directed at the University Park proposal; I think that's an entirely reasonable idea.

The shortcoming of the UP proposal is room for sports fields, and that's the one think that a park over a deck would be apt at, since there are no trees (or just a few on the edges) to rip out when you need to re-do the deck membranes in 30-40 years.
Perhaps focusing on the University Park idea as signature park space; while the Rail Deck delivers 2 new soccer pitches or the like might be the way to go.
Click to expand...
how does the 6000 units of residential compare to the last plan with 9 towers?
 
generalcanada said:
how does the 6000 units of residential compare to the last plan with 9 towers?
Click to expand...

I had to go look; the original ORCA proposal came it at 3,500 units.

So, if they've made more room for parks, we must be looking at an enormous height increase.

* though the article by Alex states that the proponents want some City land as part of this, so that may give them more working area on which to build, should this go through.

The fact they are talking 'affordable units' may also suggest some very small unit sizes.
 
If they get 6,000 units - I'll eat my toque.
 
Northern Light said:
I had to go look; the original ORCA proposal came it at 3,500 units.

So, if they've made more room for parks, we must be looking at an enormous height increase.

* though the article by Alex states that the proponents want some City land as part of this, so that may give them more working area on which to build, should this go through.

The fact they are talking 'affordable units' may also suggest some very small unit sizes.
Click to expand...
From the 2020 application.
• Residential: 208,300 m2 • Retail: 60,700 m2 • Commercial: 79,800 m2 • Institutional: 1,700 m2 • Galleria: 13,500 m2 • Atrium: 1,600 m2 • Cogen Facility: 2,500 m2

Hypothetically if theyre removing the big shopping mall, and add a few more towers closer together, theres a chance they could significantly increase the available space by almost 50%.
if they go back to the drawing board and remove everything except for the park and tower, i could see it happening
 
I registered for the town hall but still have yet to receive a zoom link... Same with 32 residents in my building lol

Can someone share the link here? zoom one
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top