Toronto Garrison Crossing (was Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge) | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | Pedelta

I'll be curious to see if this new fund creative by the Federal Conservatives might be able to help out the pedestrian bridge.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...harpers-patriotic-initiatives/article2183947/

War of 1812 fund adds to Harper’s patriotic initiatives
jane taber AND gloria galloway
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Stephen Harper is stepping up his efforts to renew Canadians’ sense of history by creating an $11.5-million fund to recognize the War of 1812 as essential to forming the Canadian identity....

The War of 1812 commemoration is actually a four-year process ending in 2015. Heritage Minister James Moore is to announce the 1812 Commemoration Fund within weeks, designed to help support projects – including new plaques, refurbished monuments, battle re-enactments, films, plays and musical performances – in communities across the country, to mark the 200th anniversary of the war.

The Federal Secretariat, Bicentennial of the War of 1812, has also been created to administer the funds and help organizations, including schools, aboriginal groups, municipal, provincial and territorial governments, with applications....
 
A Report came to the City's Government Management Committee today and it has a connection to the Bridge. See : http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2011/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-41346.pdf

The most interesting information is:

Potential Bridge Connection: In conjunction with the Park options as outlined above, Build Toronto has met with staff from the Waterfront
Secretariat, Parks, Transportation and Technical Services to examine options for the possible inclusion of the pedestrian bridge. Build Toronto
has identified that the redevelopment will generate Section 37 funds which could be used to offset a portion of the costs associated with the bridge
project. It is our understanding that staff from Technical Services will be reporting to the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee with a further report that would address the preliminary funding, design and timing issues associated with the possible bridge in the November 2011 Cycle so
that Council can review the bridge options in the context of the redevelopment of the Ordnance Lands. Beyond this stage Build Toronto
would continue to engage City officials in this process.

and

Technical Services and the Waterfront Secretariat have been consulted on the expected`timing of a report to the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee on lower cost alternatives to the previously tendered design of the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge. They have advised that the report is scheduled for the November 3, 2011 agenda of the Public Works and Infrastructure Committee.

The Bridge is Dead, Long live the Bridge?
 
Last edited:
I take it there was no funding announced for the Parliament site? Would it not be related to other events and sites of commemoration for the bicentennial?
 
It's alive!

After several months, a few different concepts for the Fort York Pedestrian and Cycle Bridge are coming forward. They all have similar design elements to the award winning design previously considered for the bridge.

Our preferred proposal includes two bridges, with one bridge linking Wellington Street south to the Ordnance Street area and a second bridge spanning from Fort York north to the Ordnance Street area. Both spans would be linked by a park and would be fully accessible from Ordnance Street. This option has better access, use of space and most reflects the original design.
Click to expand...

The new design proposals will be brought forward in the Public Works meeting tomorrow morning.

This makes absolute sense. A pair of bridges will be nearly identical to the award winning design except that it will not be elevated above the central portion. It will meet the ground.

I wonder how this works with GO's schedule. The bridge died because it missed an opening in Metrolinx's schedule. If this goes forward, we probably won't see construction initiated in time to be finished by the bicentennial.

A couple of points favouring the likelihood that this will be approved:

- It's cheaper, while retaining a lot of the character of the award winning design
- Because it's now two bridges instead of one crossing over a piece of city land, it allows the possibility that the city may one day be able to sell the land to developers as Rob Ford wants. Even though it doesn't have to be sold today (or ever, don't tell Rob Ford), the land is not permanently used up by the bridge so it appeases Ford and other councillors.
- Ford Nation is falling apart. Michelle Berardinetti and Jaye Robinson will not align blindly with Ford like they did on the first vote. I can also see Milczyn, Stintz and Thompson voting to support the bridge this time.

For reference, here's where council stood when the original bridge was killed:
2011518-votes.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks Metro - splitting it into two might even end up being an improvement from the original. Some good did come out of this afterall, hopefully.

AoD
 
MetroMan said:
It's cheaper, while retaining a lot of the character of the award winning design
- Because it's now two bridges instead of one crossing over a piece of city land, it allows the possibility that the city may one day be able to sell the land to developers as Rob Ford wants. Even though it doesn't have to be sold today (or ever, don't tell Rob Ford), the land is not permanently used up by the bridge so it appeases Ford and other councillors.
- Ford Nation is falling apart. Michelle Berardinetti and Jaye Robinson will not align blindly with Ford like they did on the first vote. I can also see Milczyn, Stintz and Thompson voting to support the bridge this time.

[/IMG]
Click to expand...

Well its cheaper,,,And the city gets to sell the land...wasnt that what it was all about in the first place with Rob:confused: .
Its a win win situation...of course it will get approved
 
AG:

This happened in spite of him, not because of him. If it was up to him, I have no doubt you'd lose the land and NOT get the bridge. Regardless we'll find out about the details tomorrow.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I don't see how the new two-part bridge design makes that chunk of land more saleable. If anything the fact that it touches down and provides pedestrian access to the 'island' of land in question, is added incentive to retain it as greenspace/parkland. Furthermore, if it gets developed it will interupt the continuity of the greenbelt along the old Garrison Creekbed. There is precious little greenspace downtown, for the paltry proceeds of the sale of this land (which is surrounded by tracks), this link in the linear greenspace is not a wise or worthwhile sacrifice. Screw robeffingford and his underhanded land dealings.
 
Last edited:
I'm not opposed to selling the land. It's not like we have a deficiency of parkland in this vicinity. As long as the bit of land between the two bridges remains public, I'm all for this. The green corridor will remain. There are already buildings on the West side of the plot, where any development would go.

Now my question is, will any developer want to build anything surrounded on 3 of 4 sides by a major rail corridor? I don't think the land is that valuable because of this.

So it's clear to me that this was a symbolic move meant to demonstrate Ford's authority against the left.

EDIT: After some review, I've noticed that there will indeed remain a significant obstacle to building this bridge, one that will no doubt prevent Ford's clique from supporting this: the plot of land where the North landing will be. This is land that could be worth a lot to a developer as has been other parcels in the immediate vicinity. This piece of land is necessary for the ramp up to the bridge and as a connection to Stanley Park. This is perhaps the real reason for Ford's opposition to the bridge, not the Ordnance plot.
 
Last edited:
Well, that seems to address my concerns. The original design without any connection in the centre was just daft.

I don't understand all the references to the project being killed however. The original decision to send it back to rework clearly didn't kill it; and what has come back seems much more reasonable - and cheaper. And still looks very cool. As much as I despise the pro-Ford dishonesty and lack of transparency at City Hall, the opposition seems to be just as guilty here.
 
Wait, there are 5 different designs in the attachment. Which one are we getting? I really hope it's not the one on page 3.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally I find them all somewhat disappointing: the integrity of the award-winning original design is compromised in them all. In the first, and as far as I can tell, in the second as well, the original design is, at least, preserved the most.

But the real question is: were Ford's antics worth it? In my view, probably not. Slightly lower costs for a cheaper design that likely compromises too much. And given how long it will take for ground to break, I expect the usual inflationary pressures to push the final bill up to somewhere around the original cost.
 
Last edited:
raptor said:
Wait, there are 5 different designs in the attachment. Which one are we getting? I really hope it's not the one on page 3.
Click to expand...

3 and 4 (truss bridges) aren't up for consideration. A1, A2 and A5 are. Layton prefers A5 which are two smaller similarly designed bridges that go straight across unlike the diagonal configuration of the others. They're connected in the middle by a park.

20111103fortyorknew.jpg


I personally like this design the least. The curved bridge platform was one of the most interesting parts of the original design. A straight bridge has nothing in common with the original other than the arch which doesn't appear to be structural, just a cosmetic add on.

A2 is a diagonal expanse but with a straight platform. A1 is the most similar to the original bridge, running an identical path but with smaller arches.

Both A1 and A2 don't require an environmental assessment because they both follow the same path as the original bridge.

The National Post is reporting that if approved, construction would start in 2014 at the earliest. I'm going to predict that by 2014, this bridge will cost over $20M, near or above the price of the original, only we'll be getting a smaller bridge and 4 years delayed.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top