Toronto Union Station Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | NORR

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Let's not go back to the LED vs. whatever debate again?

MoD
Click to expand...
It's a moot point anyway. It's already been decided.

Edit: What I can add of interest to the Union Reno is that I've been digging on 'who owns the train-shed'...and it might be a misleading question. Metrolinx are the owners of the shed, it's still questionable if they own the actual land.

The train shed is a designated heritage structure. GO Transit worked with Parks Canada
and a heritage architect in the overall design, ensuring that the heritage character of the roof is preserved. The roof will feature an environmentally friendly green roof.
The glass atrium will float over the tracks, providing daylight at platform level and a visual connection from the station to the waterfront. It will have louvered panels for air circulation. At night, the atrium will light up with Toronto skyline
Click to expand...
http://www.metrolinx.com/en/docs/pdf/firstwave/Fact_Sheet_Union_Station_EN.pdf

"Parks Canada"? Interesting...
Heritage Railway Stations
The Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act, proclaimed in 1990, affirms the federal government’s commitment to the preservation of this facet of the country’s built heritage. Parks Canada is responsible for administering the Act.

Under the Act, a heritage railway station is designated by the Minister of Canadian Heritage on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Thus far, the Minister has designated 176 stations. The Act requires federally regulated railway companies to obtain authorization before removing, destroying, altering or disposing of a heritage railway station. It also allows for public involvement in opposing those interventions that are seen as potentially deleterious to a heritage railway station or its heritage features. The Act provides for fines of up to $1 million.

Between December 1999 and October 2001, the Governor in Council, in accordance with the Act, approved the sale of 13 railway stations and an emphyteutic lease for one station. Alterations conforming to their heritage character were approved for two stations. Parks Canada acquired the Jasper and Churchill heritage railway stations to meet operational needs (park administration offices and visitor reception centre). An innovative heritage conservation initiative was approved by Order in Council in June 2000, whereby Parks Canada received the heritage conservation easement for the protection of Union Station in Toronto, a national historic site and heritage railway station.

pic69.ashx

Toronto Union Station is both a national historic site of Canada and heritage railway station.
© Parks Canada / B. Morin
Since 1994, Parks Canada has monitored compliance with regulations under the Act, reviewed proposed interventions and ensured that work is carried out in conformity with terms and conditions authorized by the Governor in Council. When a designated railway station is sold to a party not subject to the Act, Parks Canada has worked successfully with the province or territory within which the station is situated to apply its historic resource protection legislation to the station. Parks Canada is currently developing a more formal process for monitoring the heritage condition of designated stations.
Click to expand...
http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/docs/pc/rpts/edapp-sopha-2001/sec6/histor6.aspx

Very interesting...

Had to look up:
An emphyteutic lease is a type of real estate contract specifying that the lessee must improve the property with construction. The term is commonly used in Quebec. These sorts of leases are usually associated with government properties.
Emphyteutic lease - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Besides the complexity of the administration of the changes in the station and the shed (two different owners, two different imperatives under the Act?), there is symbiosis there for Parks Canada and the USRC too....Edit to Add...can't help but linger on this:
[Between December 1999 and October 2001, the Governor in Council, in accordance with the Act, approved the sale of 13 railway stations and an emphyteutic lease for one station.]

In Union Station's case, this was built and owned for generations by TTR. And it took an Act of Parliament to sell it on?

Very intriguing...
 
Last edited:
Further to the previous post, continued digging on the matter of ownership of the USRC as that pertains to air-rights, Union Station and shed land ownership and other matters, it's difficult slogging, a lot shows, but interpreting it and not having more recent court decisions and/or precedents hinders knowing the legal status, but just found this:
[...]
...the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to the use of portions of the bed of the harbour on which they had laid their tracks across the prolongations of the streets mentioned, a grant was made to that company by the Dominion Government of the "use for railway purposes" on and over the filled-in areas included within the lines formed by the production of the sides of the streets. At a later date the Dominion Government granted these areas to the city in trust to be used as public highways, subject to an agreement respecting the railways, known as the "Old Windmill Line Agreement," and excepting therefrom strips of land 66 feet in width between the southerly ends of the areas and the harbour, reserved as and for "an allowance for a public highway." In June, 1909, the Board of Railway Commissioners, on application by the city, made an order directing that the railway companies should elevate their tracks on and adjoining the "Esplanade" and construct a viaduct there. Held, Girouard and Duff, JJ. dissenting, that the Board had jurisdiction to make -such order; that the street prolongations mentioned were highways within the meaning of the "Railway Act"; that the Act of Parliament validating the agreement made in 1892 was not a "special Act" within the meaning of "The Railway Act" and did not alter the character of the agreement as a private contract affecting only the parties thereto, and that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, having acquired only a limited right or easement in the filled-in land, had not such a title thereto as would deprive the public of the right to pass over the same as a means of communication between the streets and the harbour.
[...]
I'll add more in quotation:
[...]
Here the applicant is not the Attorney-General claiming a jus publicum over certain railways, but the Railway Commission first ex proprio motu, and later on, on the special application of the City of Toronto, has taken cognizance of the situation and has ordered certain works to be done for the "protection, safety and convenience of the public," crossing over certain railways. Extraordinary powers, far exceeding any existing in the Railway Acts of any other country, are given to the Railway Board, and it might be possible that the Board had jurisdiction to issue the order given to build a viaduct and other works specified in the Order No. 7,200, dated 9th June, 1909, unless prohibited by some statute from so doing.

The reasons advanced by the Commissioners for giving this order may be unreasonable, and the work to be done even absurd; this court has nothing to do with any such possibilities, and unless it can be shewn that the Board has no jurisdiction or acted contrary to the Railway Act, this court cannot interfere, for the Board can do almost anything in relation to railways, except when prohibited by Parliament. As we held in a recent case, In re Canadian Northern

[Page 620]

Railway Co.[2],the Board cannot change the "Railway Act" of the Parliament of Canada; and I have arrived at the conclusion that, in this instance, they have violated that Act, because the subject matter of the order given by them has already been provided for by the parties and the legislatures interested, not exactly in the same manner and by the same kind of works, that is a viaduct, but by other works which had been found satisfactory to all intents and purposes and must stand until otherwise ordered by Parliament.

There is no doubt that the two railway companies all along, from the very first day they obtained possession of their lands in front of the City of Toronto for the purposes of their railways, knew that the cross streets abutting on the Esplanade might one day be prolonged to the water's edge, so as to afford public access to the front lots and to the bay or lake, in a convenient and safe manner, due regard being given to the growth of a progressive commercial city. All the plans and documents produced shew the possible prolongation of these cross streets. The two railway companies soon realized the situation and finally came to an arrangement with the City of Toronto to secure this end. On the 26th July, 1892, they came to an agreement called the Esplanade or Tripartite Agreement, which was confirmed by the Ontario Legislature, 55 Vict. ch. 90, and also by the Parliament of Canada, 56 Vict. ch. 48. Expensive works were executed, for instance overhead traffic bridges with approaches for vehicles and foot passengers, the closing of certain streets, the deviation of others, the acquisition, abandonment

[Page 621]

and exchange of lands, the raising and removal of tracks, including the erection of a vast Union Station, etc. The construction of these heavy works involved the expenditure of large sums of money amounting to several millions, the Union Station alone having cost the railways $1,370,000, and was approved of by the Parliament of Canada by Vict. ch. 48. It must be observed with reference to the opinion of the learned chairman of the Board that this agreement entirely excluded forever the proposition of a viaduct. I find in his opinion a fair recapitulation of these works, comprehensive enough to give some idea of their magnitude. He says:—

On July 26th, 1892, the city, the Grand Trunk Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the latter representing also the Toronto, Grey and Bruce Railway Company, the Ontario and Quebec Railway Company and all its other leased lines, entered into what is called the "Esplanade Tri-partite Agreement" in which appear most elaborate provisions relating to the rights of the railway companies upon the Esplanade and for the construction of the Union Station. I deal with only a few of its provisions: Par. 4 provided for the erection of private overhead bridges, (5) The city agreed to prevent the public crossing the tracks on the Esplanade between Yonge and York Streets, except at Bay Street, and the Grand Trunk Railway Co. waived its contention that it was not liable to contribute to the cost of making or protecting level crossings at Church, Yonge and Bay Streets. (7) Provided for the construction of the York Street bridge and declared it to be a public highway. (9) Provided for deviating York Street, closing a portion of it and the Esplanade. (10) The Grand Trunk agreed to construct the John Street bridge. (11) Provision was made for closing Esplanade from York Street to Brock Street and portions of Simcoe, Peter, and John Streets. (15) The railway companies agreed to pay $15,000.00 to the city for conveyance of the portions of streets agreed to be closed. (17) The city consented to the Grand Trunk Railway Co. obtaining a patent from the Crown of the prolongation of Peter Street and the companies consented to the city obtaining a patent of the prolongation of Simcoe and York Streets, all to the Old Windmill Line.

It is alleged that the Dominion statute, 56 Vict. ch. 48, merely recognized the capacity of the parties

[Page 622]

to enter into such an agreement. The Dominion statute could not give capacity to the City of Toronto. This was done by the Ontario statute. The Dominion statute was necessary to make the scheme agreed topermanent and final until otherwise provided for by Parliament.

Section 1 enacts that [...continues at length...]
Click to expand...
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/9855/index.do?r=AAAAAQAKUGVyc29ubmUgYgE

At a first glance, this appears more than profound! Haven't even begun to read this in detail, but it offers the City an interpretation of "bridging" the USRC for Rail Deck Park. I realize the point is relevant to more than just Union Station, but unless some of these earlier judgements were rendered moot or not-pertinent in later rulings, things are about to get very interesting as the City digs on ownership of the USRC and adjacent properties. (Edit: Note use of the term "possession" not "ownership" in reference to the railways)

Edit to Add: Can't quote due to copy-block, but the "Tripartite Agreement" (also referred to as "Esplanade Agreement") described at: https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=Esplanade+or+Tripartite+Agreement&source=bl&ots=1q9Pyh4ENJ&sig=B_54nS2NfC0ZCshhgm5qZje8RhQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjzrZ2slM7PAhWo34MKHRFMD7cQ6AEIKDAC#v=onepage&q=Esplanade or Tripartite Agreement&f=false
 
Last edited:
Haven't follow the thread in sometime and this may not be new.

Copper flashing being install on the end of the head house for the historically track 1 & 2 now 3 & 4.

The stairs to TTC Union Station at the west end of the Moat are history, with a flush surface leading to the 2 new entrance for the Bay Concourse from TTC Station. There is stairs leading from the lower Moat area to the existing level at the west end.

Have photos, but going to be a week before I get around to them, with about 1,800 in front of them to be tag and fix.
 
drum118 said:
Haven't follow the thread in sometime and this may not be new.

Copper flashing being install on the end of the head house for the historically track 1 & 2 now 3 & 4.

The stairs to TTC Union Station at the west end of the Moat are history, with a flush surface leading to the 2 new entrance for the Bay Concourse from TTC Station. There is stairs leading from the lower Moat area to the existing level at the west end.

Have photos, but going to be a week before I get around to them, with about 1,800 in front of them to be tag and fix.
Click to expand...


Anyone have an update on the restorations?
 
Rumour...?
Heard tell that the Bay Concourse link to/from TTC will close Monday, Oct. 31 for three months. (Haven't checked official media sites for confirmation; Twitter, etc.)

If true, we're stuck with the Luggage Shop Bypass bottleneck problem...
 
Megaton327 said:
That's still open?! Haven't used it in at least a year. Always teamway, bypass, or most often stairs up to Front St for me.
Click to expand...

Yes. I think the impending closure is a rumor. I was through there yesterday and saw no indications of any impending closure.

It is used but not by many people. For the most part people see the subway signs and head towards the leather shop bypass. I would not be surprised if they did close it soon but any impending closure has yet to be publicized. Barring an unforeseen explosion, fire or nuclear blast it will not be closing any time soon.
 
Le Gique said:
Rumour...?
Heard tell that the Bay Concourse link to/from TTC will close Monday, Oct. 31 for three months. (Haven't checked official media sites for confirmation; Twitter, etc.)

If true, we're stuck with the Luggage Shop Bypass bottleneck problem...
Click to expand...

Bay Concourse Link WAS supposed to close sometime next week.. It has been postponed until the new year to not coincide with other upcoming projects.
 
union2pearson said:
Bay Concourse Link WAS supposed to close sometime next week.. It has been postponed until the new year to not coincide with other upcoming projects.
Click to expand...

Upcoming projects? I presume that means they are waiting to complete an alternate access point before closing it?
 
Oct 11
I believe the delay of the closure has to do with the work still to be done in the Moat Area, as well the new access in the station.

The existing stairs from TTC Union Station have been removed to match the new lower level concourse. The floor level is require to gain access to the high level Moat Area to the west and a new walkway within the station.

Once this is done, the existing section will be close to allow the removal of the remaining stairs and form the new ramp area to Bay St.
30692787535_5b5d5a2ea9_h.jpg

30393013050_9b11300b0c_h.jpg

30692783085_a09e2e96d0_h.jpg

30061076164_58b6765e94_h.jpg

30576009042_713121970b_h.jpg

30061087754_5f0a708d6a_h.jpg

30692800335_9f0baa1d2b_h.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top