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

I also wouldn't discount the practical benefits of the Galleria/Skylight over extended parkland. It would mean there would be a weather protected walkway taking you from the subway system, all the way to Bathurst street, albeit with a few missing links (Union Park would have to connect to this project when built, and there would still be an exposed pedestrian bridge over Spadina connecting the two sections of this project).

For half the year though, it is a very useful space when it is cold outdoors. For the hottest months of summer, it will be a relief from the sun/heat and provide retail amenities to people using the park space.
 
A question to *Mr. 42: Do you know why the media are reporting this rail deck project as dead, when from proposed diagrams posted here, it's clearly still going to be rail deck of sorts in the end? I mean, maybe it's me...but I don't consider reduced green space as something cancelled.

*Note: I'm not sure how that "@" thingy works, so forgive my impropriety of summoning you this way. >.<
 
ProjectEnd said:
I'm curious how they plan to vent exhaust from the trains. Sure, we're going electric at some vague point in the future, but for now the diesels are here to stay...
Click to expand...

I already dug this stuff up so I'll leave it to you or someone else to sort through it but the answer is definitely in one of the reports here:

Development Applications

City Planning COA Application Information Center
app.toronto.ca

(I'd probably start with the Planning Rationale, then try the Air Quality Study and/or civil reports....
I looked very quickly at the AQS and this is part of the answer:
1621014444142.png


UtakataNoAnnex said:
A question to *Mr. 42: Do you know why the media are reporting this rail deck project as dead, when from proposed diagrams posted here, it's clearly still going to be rail deck of sorts in the end? I mean, maybe it's me...but I don't consider reduced green space as something cancelled.

*Note: I'm not sure how that "@" thingy works, so forgive my impropriety of summoning you this way. >.<
Click to expand...

Short answer:
-There is/was a City plan to deck over the corridor and make it a park.
-There was a second, competing, private plan (by the actual landowners) to build a massive development BUT which also included decking over the rail corridor with substantial parkland.

There is less parkland in the private proposal but they never envisioned putting towers directly over the train tracks.

So THE "Rail Deck Park" the City envisioned is apparently "dead" but there was always going to be A rail deck park, if that makes sense.
The City was, IMHO, not entirely honest about the difference between their lovely, ambitious, impractical plan and the other realistic plan and I'm sure you're not the only person who is hearing the messaging out there and thinking what's happened is that developers stole parkland from the City to put up condos. Kind of the opposite, almost....
 
This is honestly what I've read in into as well but what I don't understand is why the city is making such a fuss about it if that indeed the case, does the cities proposal net an additional 20% parkspace at a clearly astronomical cost vs this development ?
 
taal said:
This is honestly what I've read in into as well but what I don't understand is why the city is making such a fuss about it if that indeed the case, does the cities proposal net an additional 20% parkspace at a clearly astronomical cost vs this development ?
Click to expand...
cause it doesn't have anything to do with cost/benefit/feasibility - it has everything to do with John Tory trying to leave his mark on the city - he wants a "Nathan Philips square" or a "Mel Lastman Square" for himself, Probably would have pitched putting his name on it if it had happened
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Short answer:
-There is/was a City plan to deck over the corridor and make it a park.
-There was a second, competing, private plan (by the actual landowners) to build a massive development BUT which also included decking over the rail corridor with substantial parkland.

There is less parkland in the private proposal but they never envisioned putting towers directly over the train tracks.

So THE "Rail Deck Park" the City envisioned is apparently "dead" but there was always going to be A rail deck park, if that makes sense.
The City was, IMHO, not entirely honest about the difference between their lovely, ambitious, impractical plan and the other realistic plan and I'm sure you're not the only person who is hearing the messaging out there and thinking what's happened is that developers stole parkland from the City to put up condos. Kind of the opposite, almost....
Click to expand...
That pretty much what I was expecting to be as an answer, but wasn't really quite sure with what facts where actually being emphasized by the media for...I dare say, the click factor. So yes, that totally makes sense.

...and again, while this may not be a popular position to take, I think it's best the City works with these parties to obtain the best deal for a rail deck park instead wasting everyone's fracking time fighting this. There are far better hills for the City to fight on. You know...such as affordable housing, accountable policing, addressing urban inequality...I could go on.

PS: And thank you for answering that. /bows
 
Last edited:
taal said:
This is honestly what I've read in into as well but what I don't understand is why the city is making such a fuss about it if that indeed the case, does the cities proposal net an additional 20% parkspace at a clearly astronomical cost vs this development ?
Click to expand...
There are some napkin calculations above, but the developers are not going to make enough money off of the buildings to pay for the decking or park part of the project, so the city is still going to have to sink in significant public money to see this project built as per this plan.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
That pretty much what I was expecting to be as an answer, but wasn't really quite sure with what facts where actually being emphasized by the media for...I dare say, the click factor. So yes, that totally makes sense.

...and again, while this may not be a popular position to take, I think it's best the City works with these parties to obtain the best deal for a rail deck park instead wasting everyone's fracking time fighting this. There are far better hills for the City to fight on. You know...such as affordable housing, accountable policing, addressing urban inequality...I could go on.

PS: And thank you for answering that. /bows
Click to expand...

My pleasure and in relation to some other posts here - I expect these guys were expecting all along to work with the City.
The City took a hardline position: no negotiating. They rolled their dice at the LPAT and maybe they didn't believe these guys were for real and/or didn't have the air rights.

There is still plenty of room for give and take before all is said and done. That could still include trading this and that for some public parkland dedication. But the City lost a big battle here instead of starting out on the right foot, IMHO. They may have won some PR battles with people who haven't been paying too much attention but, yeah, once it's all getting built (if/when...) I assume a lot of people will see the new park and wonder what all the fuss was really about.
 
okay i think a huge portion missed here is that even the devs have envisioned a parkland on the area. Why should they? If theyre able to fit 3 more condos instead of the grassland in the rendered images, whats stopping them?

I guess the next lpat hearing for a detailed design would be in about a year or 2 but im very skeptical that they would keep the park area.

Is the LPAT able to say no due to missing features like lots of parkland?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top