Union Station Rail Corridor Improvements

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well in a way they are doing that by putting a greenroof on the trainshed. Making that space publically accessible might pose safety/security issues, on top of the big question of - "for what"? Parks aren't exactly lacking in the area, and for all intents and purposes pedestrians are more likely to use the at grade/below grade connections that are/will be made available.

AoD

 

[baramburum]

Cool idea. But where do you suggest we get the funds from?

And realistically, this is not going to sell as many souvenirs as the Eiffel tower.

Sure. If you can see, the most of Union rails are already covered. You just have to add one more water-protective layer and put trees on it.

Most likely PwC and Delta would happy to cover new layer costs. Why ? Because the park near their buildings will significantly increase the value of the location. All trees will be bought by citizens. Sure, we will put their names on it.

 

[baramburum]

And realistically, this is not going to sell as many souvenirs as the Eiffel tower.

Do you think it really depends on the initiative itself ? You can put the sculpture park here or create some very cool attraction.

 

[baramburum]

Cool idea. But where do you suggest we get the funds from?

Another way to monetize, it is to rent the park for the restaurants

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

baramburum:

Please familarize yourself with the current plans by the GO:

http://www.gotransit.com/UnionStation/en/docs/GONews_SpecEd_ENG.pdf

AoD

 

[gweed123]

Sure. If you can see, the most of Union rails are already covered. You just have to add one more water-protective layer and put trees on it.

Most likely PwC and Delta would happy to cover new layer costs. Why ? Because the park near their buildings will significantly increase the value of the location. All trees will be bought by citizens. Sure, we will put their names on it.

1) Accessibility would be god-awful.
2) The trainshed roof is a heritage structure. You'd need to go through a boatload of heritage approvals to touch it.
3) The roof wasn't designed to carry the weight of people, let alone trees.
4) Re-inforcing the roof would cost millions, and tearing it down wouldn't be an option, because as I mentioned before, it's a heritage structure.

I put this in the same category as the elevated park over the Gardiner idea: Pipe dream.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Hate to say it, but the trainshed being a "heritage" piece is one of the saddest excuse for keeping it. What's it supposed to remind us? That everyone else were entitled to having airy spaces while we're stuck with it?

AoD

 

[baramburum]

Making that space publically accessible might pose safety/security issues, AoD

Sure, there are always some organization question. So no issues to find the solution.

the big question of - "for what"?

The purpose is simple - the Green City !

Parks aren't exactly lacking in the area, and for all intents and purposes pedestrians are more likely to use the at grade/below grade connections that are/will be made available.

There are 7 new skyscrapers in this area and one of them is the hotel and tree 55 store condos. To have one more extra park is not so bad idea. We can put the kindergarten here, dog walk and the running area

pedestrians are more likely to use the at grade/below grade connections that are/will be made available.

Not really. For Delta, PwC and New Office building it would be more easy to cross the park, rather than exit to the street. And for the access to the Metro Center and Aquarium it would be also the nice walk way, because the Sky-walk is already built.

 

[baramburum]

baramburum:

Please familarize yourself with the current plans by the GO:

http://www.gotransit.com/UnionStation/en/docs/GONews_SpecEd_ENG.pdf

AoD

It is what i am saying, it is the right time to add some more initiative here.

 

[gweed123]

Hate to say it, but the trainshed being a "heritage" piece is one of the saddest excuse for keeping it. What's it supposed to remind us? That everyone else were entitled to having airy spaces while we're stuck with it?

AoD

Oh I completely agree, I think it's ugly as all hell. But from a Site Plan perspective, rules are rules. Sprucing it up is one thing (I strongly encourage that), but putting a park on top of it would present significant engineering challenges, to the point that it could be argued that the heritage value of the structure is being destroyed in the process.

 

[baramburum]

1) Accessibility would be god-awful.

It depends on realization

2) The trainshed roof is a heritage structure. You'd need to go through a boatload of heritage approvals to touch it.

They already planed to do so

3) The roof wasn't designed to carry the weight of people, let alone trees.

I do not think it would be some problems to make it stronger. People doesn`t weight so much.

4) Re-inforcing the roof would cost millions, and tearing it down wouldn't be an option

Everything cost something. But there are a lot of benefits here as well

because as I mentioned before, it's a heritage structure.

The building itself is heritage, but i do not think that the rail coverage has some value

I put this in the same category as the elevated park over the Gardiner idea: Pipe dream.

Not the same. Much cheaper.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's a nice idea. But it's just not great value for the taxpayer. If PwC and Delta are the primary beneficiaries then I'd like to see them foot most of the bill. If they are willing to do that, I'd support it. Otherwise, I'd rather not have the city getting mired in some major engineering challenges (which you are severely underestimating with comments like "people don't weigh that much".), involving a heritage structure (which the rail shed is...but you've dismissed), and the largest working rail hub in the city for marginal benefits that would accrue to a few. This thing won't be a few million. If we're lucky it would be a few tens of millions. But I could easily see an effort like this reaching 9 figures when all is said and done.

 

[baramburum]

It's a nice idea. But it's just not great value for the taxpayer. If PwC and Delta are the primary beneficiaries then I'd like to see them foot most of the bill. If they are willing to do that, I'd support it. Otherwise, I'd rather not have the city getting mired in some major engineering challenges (which you are severely underestimating with comments like "people don't weigh that much".), involving a heritage structure (which the rail shed is...but you've dismissed), and the largest working rail hub in the city for marginal benefits that would accrue to a few. This thing won't be a few million. If we're lucky it would be a few tens of millions. But I could easily see an effort like this reaching 9 figures when all is said and done.

The project is very scalable, so you can do it as an option. At first stage just to build the small part of park - say in Metro Center area. Then see how it is going. If it will become popular, then start building the second stage and etc.

 

[baramburum]

Green initiative is very trendy and always welcome by people.
There are a lot of ways how to monetize the city parks, so there are no reason to worry about the tax pressure.

 

[kEiThZ]

Green initiative is very trendy and always welcome by people.
There are a lot of ways how to monetize the city parks, so there are no reason to worry about the tax pressure.

Such generic statements won't win taxpayer support....even if it were possible with the current administration.

And I don't buy it. How many city parks today make enough to cover their own maitenance costs?

By the way, none of this pessimism is to dismiss your idea. I love the ideas. I just don't think there's money to support them, unless the private sector or private citizens are willing to foot the bill.