Toronto Rail Deck Development | 239.43m | 72s | LIUNA | Sweeny &Co

Refusal report for Dec 20 TEYCC here
Some bs excuses, just cause they needed some reasons to reject it

City Council refuse application 17 164359 STE 20 OZ for an Official Plan Amendment in the area of the rail corridor generally bounded by Bathurst Street to the West, Blue Jays Way to the east, Front Street West to the north and the Northern Linear Park to the south including 433 Front Street West for all of the reasons set out in the report (December 20, 2017) from the Acting Director, Community Planning, Toronto and East York District including:
a. the application does not conform with the Growth Plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe;
b. the application is not consistent with the Provincial Policy Statement;
c. the application does not conform to the Official Plan including but not limited to policies related to structuring growth, the downtown, the greenspace system, transportation, built form and public realm, parks and open spaces, Utility Corridors, Mixed Use Areas, and Parks and Open Space Areas;
d. the application does not conform to the Railway Lands Central and Railway Lands West Secondary Plans including but not limited to policies related to major objectives, structure form and physical amenity, parks open space and pedestrian systems, transportation and circulation, environment, future development areas and Utility Corridors;
e. the application does not address the emerging directions from the TOCore Planning Study; and
f. the proposal is inconsistent with the Railway Lands Central and West Urban Design Guidelines and the Tall Building Design Guidelines.
Click to expand...
 
This is about what I expected. You can't put down, "Our plan is cooler," on your planning report. But, it doesn't conform with the Growth Plan and PPS? Really reaching for the stars on those ones.

The proposal is not consistent with the PPS and does not conform to the Growth Plan as it does not address the objectives of the plans to balance growth and infrastructure and poses potential challenges to sustain major transportation infrastructure with the addition of major buildings above the rail corridor.

And:
The majority of the site within the Railway Lands West Secondary Plan Area is designated
Utility Corridor, which functions as a rail corridor and is considered a "Future Development
Area", which is not a land use designation.

So, the mixed-use proposal, which includes a GO station built into an office tower, doesn't balance growth and infrastructure and create "complete communities" the way the park-only proposal does? And they're arguing it interferes with rail operations("crucial city infrastructure," a term which I'm sure is not in the Rail Deck Park report?

There are some interesting points in there (like Metrolinx says they don't have a CONTRACT with Orca, but don't say they haven't talked to them) and I see what they're trying to say but it reads a lot like they're trying to take it down an way they can, and they'll see what sticks. Good luck at the OMB.
 
Last edited:
Happy to hear this. Sure this project would have helped pay for it, but it would have compromised the end result.

Wouldn't have been much of a park with all those buildings on the site.
 
heatscore said:
Happy to hear this. Sure this project would have helped pay for it, but it would have compromised the end result.
Wouldn't have been much of a park with all those buildings on the site.
Click to expand...

Yeah true, but it still would be a big enough park built over the next 5-10 years ...instead of a vision that the city will drag on for the next 20-30 years,
that's about how long it has taken the city to finally build 2 schools and a community centre @ Cityplace,
 
30 years to get something right is a blip. It took centuries to build cathedrals. It took The US 85 years to build their National Cathedral. So our generation may not be able to experience the rail deck park. It is worth that much to therefore compromise the design? You know the old saying, Rome wasn't built in a day.
 
maestro said:
30 years to get something right is a blip. It took centuries to build cathedrals. It took The US 85 years to build their National Cathedral. So our generation may not be able to experience the rail deck park. It is worth that much to therefore compromise the design? You know the old saying, Rome wasn't built in a day.
Click to expand...

Yeah Right, don't forget "the relief line that was planned in the early 20th century and is still having studies on how to build it right?,
maybe one day when our Mayors and City Councilors know they have a two term mandate they will start getting the ball rolling on how to get things done right.
 
Last edited:
it's great until you run out of other people's money.

Such a giant public expense to build this rail deck is misplaced priorities. Some people have developed almost a religious "park purity" ferver against allowing any development here. Nearby we have nice parks and opportunities for parks on the lake, this area already has a lot of park space. It's crazy to spend all of our park money on this, when we can still get a very nice park and public space by allowing development over part of this corridor. It is amazing how lucky we are, but we are squandering opportunities to work with others. I don't understand why the politicians have dug in their heels on this one rather than be pragmatic and realise that we can't fund such a park from scarce public funds. Hopefully the OMB or higher levels of government can bring sanity to this.
 
ponyboy said:
it's great until you run out of other people's money.

Such a giant public expense to build this rail deck is misplaced priorities. Some people have developed almost a religious "park purity" ferver against allowing any development here. Nearby we have nice parks and opportunities for parks on the lake, this area already has a lot of park space. It's crazy to spend all of our park money on this, when we can still get a very nice park and public space by allowing development over part of this corridor. It is amazing how lucky we are, but we are squandering opportunities to work with others. I don't understand why the politicians have dug in their heels on this one rather than be pragmatic and realise that we can't fund such a park from scarce public funds. Hopefully the OMB or higher levels of government can bring sanity to this.
Click to expand...

The politicians represent the residents on this one. The residents of the area are wholly behind this. (And there are a lot of residents there now) Whatever you think of it, don't think it is Tory's pet project. In fact, I'd say that he is more likely than the councillors to work out a compromise with the PITS. I will be curious to see if the PITS try to sweeten the deal or if they will push their vision. I wonder if Ford is going to take a side on this.
 
ponyboy said:
Nearby we have nice parks and opportunities for parks on the lake, this area already has a lot of park space.
Click to expand...
This area does not have a lot of park space. There are a couple small parks here and there in the Entertainment District, and a thin ribbon of parks down at the lake—which is not convenient to get to from north of CityPlace—and at the same time you have a very quickly growing population in the surrounding area. A park here will be very well used.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top