Rail Deck Park (?, ?, ?)

[44 North]

That's a completely asinine comment. Yorkville Park, Music Garden, Berczy Park, Sherbourne Commons, Corktown Commons........tons of parks show a high level of design.

Equally, not every park need do so, sometimes all that is required is a some shade, seating, a drinking fountain etc.

But no one has suggested this is going to be a 26 acre patch of trees and grass.

Agreed, we have some great parks. As a new one Corktown Common is amazing and deserving of its accolades. But I think part of the sentiment from some is that they want something grand/open, which downtown does lack to a large extent. We have an amazing assortment of parks, but unlike many major cities that saw expansive areas razed and re-planned to be grand and open, Toronto didn't really do that. I don't have much problem with it, considering that's our history. We never were supposed to be a great megalopolis like Chicago or NYC, and we planned ad hoc and in piecemeal as a 2nd/3rd tier industrial centre. Though in the latter part of the 20th C we started approaching quasi-great status by default. What we seem to be missing is the large open spaces downtown, where the public is greeted with amazing sightlines and whatnot.

But I guess which is better: a large civic square that can host events, a sport/recreational space, a naturalized parkland ecosystem, or all of the above?

I also have some concern over too great an investment in downtown.

To be clear, there were years/decades of under investment and many proposals, such as the DRL are long overdue.

I do, however, have some concern that we not create a reversal of the US doughnut problem by under-investing in our inner suburbs.

Hopefully the September report will bring forward a cohesive costing and parks strategy.

And equally, maybe we'll finally see some tough revenue raising decisions this year by the City so we can more accurately assess what's available and how best to utilize said funds.

One of my worries. A particular public investments that makes me think this is the new Ferry Terminal. I'm fine with improving what we have now, but feel that we may be overdoing it in this case. I guess I haven't seen the costs, and am only assuming it will be a lot from the fanciful design chosen. But there's no question funds are limited, we have a backlog of plans which seems ever-growing, and that it may be wise to tread wisely.

That's such a bullshit example though. From St Clair going south, that covered cut is:

• A parking garage
• Bretton Place and The Summerhill (all private access; tennis courts, parking garage, patio and the buildings themselves)
• TTC-owned grassy area that is completely fenced off, no access allowed
• Another private tennis court

A lot of tennis courts over the subway. If we're making a list we can add Wellesley station as well (its air rights were used for a bldg's parking garage which had two tennis courts above it, tho I think its one now).

 

[Euphoria]

In respect of this proposal, as whole, I'm not unsupportive, subject to the detailed design, of course.

However, I have misgivings about too many priorities.

We all recognize here that there are very major capital spending needs in Toronto.

The DRL chief among them.

But, also spending on w/e is done w/the eastern Gardiner; the naturalization of the mouth-of-the-Don; and huge array of lesser, but nonetheless expensive projects.

As it stands, the City will have to (and should) raise or implement new taxes to pay for many of these priorities.

But we are once again adding to the list without a clear sense of the financial implications and trade-offs.

As an example, the City quietly killed the nascent plans/EA looking at burying or removing the Allen Expressway; w/the simple rationale of 'no money'.

What else will be traded off?

****

I also have some concern over too great an investment in downtown.

To be clear, there were years/decades of under investment and many proposals, such as the DRL are long overdue.

I do, however, have some concern that we not create a reversal of the US doughnut problem by under-investing in our inner suburbs.

Hopefully the September report will bring forward a cohesive costing and parks strategy.

And equally, maybe we'll finally see some tough revenue raising decisions this year by the City so we can more accurately assess what's available and how best to utilize said funds.

While I sympathize to some extent about this notion that projects like this favour the downtown, the reality is that no one's coming to Toronto to see Scarborough or Etobicoke. Sorry. The major wealth generation for the city is happening downtown and is floating all boats. I'd argue that everyone in the GTA will benefit from this linear park. If people come in from out of town to see a Jays game or visit the aquarium, this is one more place to walk, have a picnic, play. Toronto's public investment in transit, parks, and other public amenities has not kept pace with private development such as condos. Having said that, it's sad that the default position in Canada whenever there's a need for investment in the public realm is to raise taxes. Our taxes are outrageous. Anyone can raise taxes to pay for stuff. There's no ingenuity in that. The brilliance is in tapping private revenue streams and creating synergies with other public investments. For example, in Niagara on the Lake some of the gardening is funded by the local horticultural society. Designs, planning and gardening are sometimes provided by colleges. If we want public art in the park, involve OCAD and the AGO, hold a fundraising campaign, attach it to festivals like Luminato. If there's going to be a GO RER/ST station there anyway, incorporate part of the park as a green roof. I could see clever interventions like a glass floor in part of the park with the railway floodlit beneath it. Maybe allow a string of unusual housing to be suspended above the park and connected by walkways to take advantage of the air rights. Dedicate the development charges, sale of air rights, and private public park funds to the park. We don't need to raise taxes or underfund other budget items to do this.

 

[Euphoria]

The CAMH site is far from complete. The street grid on it isn't even done. Its being phased.

This is what the first 'insane asylum' on that site looked like, designed by John Lyle, one of the most beautiful edifices in the city. I don't mean to get off topic, but I scratch my head at the demolitions in this city.

 

[p5connex]

Not sure if this has been posted yet, but decking over of the Hudson Yards in New York City, at 11.5 hectares approximately, will/is to cost $700 million. However, I am not sure where that number stands today, since the information I have seen is from 2014.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...hudson-yards-starts-next-phase-as-deck-begins

 

[salsa]

Having said that, it's sad that the default position in Canada whenever there's a need for investment in the public realm is to raise taxes. Our taxes are outrageous. Anyone can raise taxes to pay for stuff. There's no ingenuity in that. The brilliance is in tapping private revenue streams and creating synergies with other public investments. For example, in Niagara on the Lake some of the gardening is funded by the local horticultural society. Designs, planning and gardening are sometimes provided by colleges. If we want public art in the park, involve OCAD and the AGO, hold a fundraising campaign, attach it to festivals like Luminato. If there's going to be a GO RER/ST station there anyway, incorporate part of the park as a green roof. I could see clever interventions like a glass floor in part of the park with the railway floodlit beneath it. Maybe allow a string of unusual housing to be suspended above the park and connected by walkways to take advantage of the air rights. Dedicate the development charges, sale of air rights, and private public park funds to the park. We don't need to raise taxes or underfund other budget items to do this.

Hmm, I was fully expecting another tunnelled highway proposal from you that would somehow pay for this park.

 

[Euphoria]

Ha ha. You know I'll never let that idea go...

 

[W. K. Lis]

At 8.5 hectares, the Rail Deck Park will be smaller than Trinity Bellwoods Park, at 14.6 hectares.

The Rail Deck Park would be narrower, but longer than Trinity Bellwoods Park.

 

[Euphoria]

I love Trinity-Bellwoods, but my favourite park that I've seen in Canada is still Square Saint-Louis in Montreal. It's got that similar feel of a park surrounded by quaint Victorian architecture, but it's just so darn beautiful. Very Parisian. I love the Art Nouveau marquee and kiosk. If Trinity-Bellwoods had a few of these extras, and maybe a Paris style Art Nouveau Metropolitan entrance for a future DRL station, it would really be 'the shit.' Don't get me wrong, the ultra modern is great, which is likely what we'll get in the linear park over the rail corridor, but we just don't seem to do parks or squares like some of the older cities.

 

[salsa]

Chicago experts who worked on Millennium Park have some advice for Toronto. Their key message: "expect it to cost more than you think, expect it to take longer than you think, and go for it anyway".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/chicago-millennium-park-rail-deck-1.3708282

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The people who oppose Rail Deck Park are going to look as foolish as those who opposed the CN Tower in the 70s.

 

[Palma]

Chicago experts who worked on Millennium Park have some advice for Toronto. Their key message: "expect it to cost more than you think, expect it to take longer than you think, and go for it anyway".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/chicago-millennium-park-rail-deck-1.3708282

Well are we not already used to this in Toronto, transit projects overruns, Union Station Reno, the list can go on and on.

With the announcement of this new park, it got me thinking of "Downsview Parc" and whatever became of that. Yes, I think there is still federal ownership of the land in terms of what gets approved for the site (it appears most of it will be turned over for condo and townhouses) so we cannot blame City Council. But our parks are no longer kept nice like they use to be. Staff needs to be allocated to keep parks free of garbage and grass kept cut on a regular basis not just when residents complain

 

[sixrings]

I am still hopefull for downsview and agreed that our parks were once better maintained. However I would rather have this park and (hopefully downsview) than say an expo or Olympics.. Then again Olympics has downsview written all over it.

 

[smably]

The Star:
Rail deck park could be extended east to convention centre

Surprise! Oxford's convention centre expansion might not be dead after all:

“We’re still very ambitious to come forward with a new convention centre on that site and working towards that end,” Oxford president and CEO Blake Hutcheson told the Star Thursday. If plans to redevelop the convention centre site proceed, the deck and park space “would be an integral part of our conversation and our ambition,” he said.

Hutcheson, who said the developer fully supports the city’s plans while noting they will certainly increase property values, said Oxford is eager to move forward with its own vision. “That means a matter of years, not decades,” he said.

“When the casino died a natural death, that was totally fine from our perspective,” Hutcheson said, explaining they believed the casino seemed like the least expensive way to build the “badly needed” convention centre revitalization but leveraging private money.

But redesigned, Hutcheson said the 11-acre area could still contain a 5.5-acre park if decked over, pushing the possible public-realm space over the rail corridor to more than 25 acres.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The Star:
Rail deck park could be extended east to convention centre
Surprise! Oxford's convention centre expansion might not be dead after all:

Not surprised considering they're in it for the long game. In fact their portion is probably of the highest priority, over the section between Bathurst and Spadina.

AoD

 

[W. K. Lis]

From the city's own report on downtown parks, see link:

Strata parks (parks built over structures, such as underground parking garages) are particularly challenging for park design and growing large healthy trees. Despite membrane technology, they eventually leak into the structures below, requiring the removal of park features in order to make costly repairs to waterproofing systems. Complaints also arise from park activities (e.g. concerts) that disturb commercial spaces built underneath strata parks.

The Rail Deck Park would be a "strata" park, being built over the railway tracks.

We see "strata" green spaces around condo and apartment buildings. This where the green space is over the underground garages for the buildings.