[steveintoronto]

Was digging through the new website, and didn't find any new renderings, but found something interesting in this picture:[...] I know this is still early, and that this picture is probably more of a placeholder, but I don't like the idea of extending roads through the future park as implied by the white dash lines. Parks are for people, not cars!

The City might be bound (albeit the power of deciding might be theirs) to continue through the roadways. However! Just as Mark intimated prior, if Colossal Park (sub-Jurassic) is ever built, provision should be made for flown rail tracks over the present ones to alleviate Union Station crowding, and/or roads continued through *under* the park, which *doesn't have to be flat*. Mounds can be created, albeit how they make them interesting would be the creative challenge.

Good digging btw!

 

[steveintoronto]

222 Jarvis was completed in 1971. Many ideas in Toronto get turned upside down but these guys took it literally.

Let's hope Rail Deck Park doesn't meet the same literal fate, that would be an ugly mess.

Rumour has it that the Egyptian Consular Secretary sent a legal notice to the City to warn against them using the "copyrighted" symbol of a "Pyramid" ® in any shape or form. They indicate that the lame "TORONTO" sign should satisfy our historical and social needs as we express them.

They are in De Nile.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Months back I posted the results of what I researched *appearing* to show (only later Acts of Parliament or court interpretations could change it) that the City *continues to own* the corridor along what used to be The Esplanade (only part of which is left as a street today). If that is the case, look for massive court battles to erupt as the City takes back claim to those air-rights, let alone ground rights. From my reading, the railways were granted "leases" not ownership, of the Union Station Corridor.

Well that's just it, right? The City would really like for that to be true, but given the money at stake, any railway and/or developer that was hoping for profits on those air rights will look to make arguments in court, and establish some case law. They will go to great lengths and create massive detailed arguments to make their case, pulling on other written law, case law or development precedents that we UT'ers haven't even begun to become aware of. Even then, it all comes down to the skill of the counsel on each side, what evidence is and is not admitted in court, and a judge's interpretation of everything. And then, it could even go to two successive rounds!

 

[salsa]

More details will be coming in the fall, including an updated cost estimate. The article also mentions potentially high maintenance costs which other cities have experienced.


Toronto to get expert advice on Rail Deck Park at urban planning conference

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/toronto-rail-deck-park-1.4080719?platform=hootsuite

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Some roads are necessary so that the bigger arterials don't turn into congested highways - which they already are. I mean motorized vehicles have a place in our economy and are not the devil. It's not like cars are the only things that use roads.

I'm just concerned that in this case two roads bisecting the park would cut it up too much. I agree that roads are necessary, but in this case I'd like to see new 1 road max, as it is a park not road project. And I know cars aren't the devil, I grew up in Oakville where driving is king, and even when I take the GO Train I drive to the station and enjoy free parking in our beautiful 1200-space garage

The City might be bound (albeit the power of deciding might be theirs) to continue through the roadways. However! Just as Mark intimated prior, if Colossal Park (sub-Jurassic) is ever built, provision should be made for flown rail tracks over the present ones to alleviate Union Station crowding, and/or roads continued through *under* the park, which *doesn't have to be flat*. Mounds can be created, albeit how they make them interesting would be the creative challenge.

Good digging btw!

Yeah I can for sure see the utility in some road connections. On the park being flat, I agree that it should have mounds and character to it.

 

[steveintoronto]

In reply to my posting:
steveintoronto said: ↑

The City might be bound (albeit the power of deciding might be theirs) to continue through the roadways. However! Just as Mark intimated prior, if Colossal Park (sub-Jurassic) is ever built, provision should be made for flown rail tracks over the present ones to alleviate Union Station crowding, and/or roads continued through *under* the park, which *doesn't have to be flat*. Mounds can be created, albeit how they make them interesting would be the creative challenge.

Yeah I can for sure see the utility in some road connections. On the park being flat, I agree that it should have mounds and character to it.

Just starting to read through the 1909 Supreme Court decision, every page I've read so far is brimming with relevance to the situation today, and *it appears* that the City of Toronto is not accorded final say on the through roads, it's *prescribed* by the various Acts and Statutes! The railways are the ones with the least standing save for what the Acts, Statutes and Agreements state. The best the railways did was to have land granted to them in the docks and elsewhere in lieu of their "tenancy" on the the Esplanade, raised portion or not.

This particular excerpt (pg 7 of the pdf linked) is stunning, albeit a dissenting opinion on the final judgement, and unless this has been overturned in a later decision, or the pertaining legal basis has been changed by Parliament, the City, by evoking this ruling to gain 'what is theirs', might also be held to the same sword:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/9855/1/document.do

I've just finished reading on what roads are to have access under or over the "viaduct" (and as far west as York Street I believe)(edit: Found reference to "Brock Street"), and there's more detailed later in this ruling and in the Statutes and Agreements linked from the book earlier. This *appears* to give the City a huge degree of 'latitude in ownership and rights', but the sword is double-edged. It also gives the *Public* rights of passage via "roads" for the purpose of conveyance.

If some other readers care to delve through this, I'd love to discuss legal details further, either in this string, or one opened on the subject. Some of this is so profound I can't believe my eyes at times. Be good to get others' interpretations to compare.

Here's a 60 page legal analysis of the powers of "Railway Board" (some of these powers still reside in the present Railway Act and Relocation Act today). Opening page:

http://lawjournal.mcgill.ca/userfiles/other/3866124-Benidickson.pdf

 

[PinkLucy]

I dunno how 'new' this is. Maybe it's just existing information that has been cleaned up and linked, but not sure it suggests new movement yet. Even before all of the political wrangling, I think the legal ownership issue remains unresolved.

They were just talking about it on CBC Radio. Tory was at a meeting discussing urban parks so I'm sure that has given it new life in the media.

 

[steveintoronto]

There may be a huge legal glitch, although it might be in the City's eventual favour, albeit this is from the dissenting opinion that I've quoted prior. The glitch? That land may be Federal, at least in regulation! (How that affects air rights is an entirely other question, but the Feds just might want to be included in this scheme. They'd certainly bring massive legal weight to the situation, as well as funding, and perhaps the InfraBank)(The present day Railway Act alludes to RoW and by extension, air-rights, as being within their purview, although that might have to be tested in court. This is the case with all federally regulated lands)

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/9855/1/document.do

Edit to Clarify: What the SCC case above is about is not whether the railways own their RoW along the 'Esplanade Viaduct', they are accorded no ownership thereof, it's the *cost* of building the structure that is being challenged, specifically in this case by Grand Trunk Railway and Canadian Pacific Railway, who claim the City should pay for the structure, not them as prescribed by the Railway Board.

Whether that structure is owned by the railways is something I've yet to discover in the case, ("for the Good of Canada" indicates not) but it's a moot point as to air-rights, as the land belongs to the City, granted initially by the Feds to the City via the Province. I don't have direct reference to that handy, but here is indirect reference in another Supreme Court case:

Supreme Court of Canada
Adamson v. Rogers, 26 S.C.R. 159
Date 1896-03-24
[...]
1857, 20 Vic. ch. 80, intituled

an Act to amend the Act conveying to the city of Toronto certain water lots, with power to the said city for the construction of an esplanade and to enable the said city to locate the Grand Trunk railroad and other railroads along the frontage of the said city,—

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/3224/3/document.do

*Apparently*, even being City owned, the regulation of that land, and the air-rights above it appear to reside in the Railway Act for as long as that land is used as a federally regulated railway right of way.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

If some other readers care to delve through this, I'd love to discuss legal details further, either in this string, or one opened on the subject. Some of this is so profound I can't believe my eyes at times. Be good to get others' interpretations to compare.

Man, so many layers here. It may deserve its own thread, but a tangible subject like Rail Deck Park is what is driving my ambition to dive into it. Generally musing about the rights and powers of different stakeholders? I dunno, you might have to pay me for that. And send me to law school, pay my tuition.

But I think I'll read a bit, draft my thoughts, and come back.

 

[steveintoronto]

But I think I'll read a bit, draft my thoughts, and come back.

I was just Googling to find one of my prior references to discuss (the provincial book with the statutes applicable) and is wont for Googling sometimes, the slightest variance of tag renders a hit you haven't read before, and bingo!

Supreme Court of Canada

Grand Trunk Railway Co. v. City of Toronto, [1910] S.C.R. 613

Date: 1910-02-15

The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company Appellants;

and

The City of Toronto Respondent.

(Toronto Viaduct Case.)

1909: November 29, 30; 1910: February 15.

Present: Girouard, Davies, Idington, Duff and Anglin JJ. [...]

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/6419/index.do

Except this is in text form (not scanned bitmap of original typed decision https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/9855/1/document.do ) with notes describing the condensed sections of the original. (Which I've taken page screenshots of in prior posts)

Here's my impression so far of what I've read of the original document (and this is addictive reading, once you adopt the 'dialect' of the legalese of the time):

*Unless many sections have now been rendered superseded by later Acts* (which I can't find from Google searching) then these statutes and SCC decisions rendered on them are profound! Again, unless superseded (and it could only be by the Parliament of Canada to amend) then it appears that "air-rights" that have been sold on or over the Esplanade land have no legal basis! A lot of titles would appear to be nulled.

I can barely believe this...and even a cursory read by yourself or others could add a perspective to this I can't quite fathom from what I read.

I leave it at that for now...since I'm so taken aback at what I read. This affects far more than the Rail Deck Park, it affects a number of adjacent properties already developed with the assumption that they purchased rights.

There is an historical precedent for this with CP and and O&Q ownership case. Best I reference:

Supreme Court of Canada

Wotherspoon v. Canadian Pacific Ltd, [1987] 1 S.C.R. 952

Date: 1987-06–25

Gordon Dorward de Salaberry Wotherspoon, Allan Leslie Beattie, Clarke McLean Beattie, Robert John Butler, Robert Alfred Dunford, Geoffrey Arthur Nelson Hitchlock, Earl Herbert Orser, Morgan Cecil Payne, Paul Charles Statler and Allan Purchase Upshall, as trustees of the Eaton Retirement Annuity Plan, suing on behalf of themselves and all other shareholders of Ontario and Quebec Railway Company except the individual Defendants and the Defendant, Canadian Pacific Limited Appellants

v.

Canadian Pacific Limited, Marathon Realty Company Limited and Ontario and Quebec Railway Company Respondents

and

John Turner, on behalf of himself and all holders of 5 % permanent debenture stock in the Ontario and Quebec Railway Company Intervener

and between

Joseph Pope, suing on behalf of himself and all other shareholders of Ontario and Quebec Railway Company except the individual Defendants and the Defendant, Canadian Pacific Limited Appellant

v.

Canadian Pacific Limited, Marathon Realty Company Limited and Ontario and Quebec Railway Company Respondents

and

John Turner, on behalf of himself and all holders of 5 % permanent debenture stock in the Ontario and Quebec Railway Company Intervener

INDEXED AS: WOTHERSPOON V. CANADIAN PACIFIC LTD. [...]

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/6419/index.do

I'll try and find a cover story later and link, just wanted the legal reference made in this string to indicate how these events have played out in the past.

Note "John Turner"! The one and same...

Here's the statutes book link from Google:
https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=statute+esplanade+and+tripartite+agreement&source=bl&ots=1qbMAj4DUM&sig=yUUnupnsrc14hCt_dQUAQMYQtj8&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwizmZLfqcPTAhVD54MKHdW1Bm0Q6AEIMTAC#v=onepage&q=statute esplanade and tripartite agreement&f=false

 

[ADRM]

Some roads are necessary so that the bigger arterials don't turn into congested highways - which they already are. I mean motorized vehicles have a place in our economy and are not the devil. It's not like cars are the only things that use roads.

But it's not a safe assumption that those roads cutting through the park would alleviate congestion. And, even if that were to be substantiated by traffic modeling, we'd still want to weigh that against the ancillary costs of doing so.

Either way, I'm definitely on team let's not build a billion dollar park just to put some f**king roads through it.

 

[steveintoronto]

But it's not a safe assumption that those roads cutting through the park would alleviate congestion. And, even if that were to be substantiated by traffic modeling, we'd still want to weigh that against the ancillary costs of doing so.

Either way, I'm definitely on team let's not build a billion dollar park just to put some f**king roads through it.

Absolutely agreed on "not through it"....but *under it*! A number of them are required by Act of Parliament, as detailed prior.

One of the biggest challenges if this thing ever 'gets off the ground' is planning what runs under it, and where. Something that must be considered before decking-over is double-stacking at least some of the rail tracks to increase through-put at Union Station. Ventilating the deck is also going to be very necessary. It's all a bit surreal though, but what's becoming very apparent to me is that there have been land deals on and by the Esplanade Corridor that appear to be illegal.

John Sewell's book is on-line from Google, and one of his chapters is entitled: "The railway swindle". It's a very interesting read.

Here's a link, just tested the search function for "railway swindle". You can scroll back and forth from the page hit shown. It is unfortunately remiss in not detailing the names of acts and decisions that he claims to be the case, but does give fodder for further searching.
Up Against City Hall - John Sewell - Google Books
https://books.google.com › ... › Public Policy › City Planning & Urban Development
In this book, John Sewell provides a frank, informal account of his involvement in the key issues in Toronto city politics during this period ... The railway swindle.

Page 130

What I find is that the SCC and Railway Board did the opposite, at least as far as I can tell, and that was effective up until some years after their decisions in the early part of the last century. (Note his reference to "last century" was referring to mid-1800s) What the challenge is now is to find out what has happened since, apparently in violation of the early court rulings and statutes.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

With 28 Bathurst Street now becoming a park, perhaps this is a catalyst for discussion about extending Rail Deck Park west of Bathurst?

While a multi-use trail will be good, the gap between Stanley Park, Garrison Point, the west portion (less sensitive) part of Fort York and Bathurst is galling.

 

[PinkLucy]

While a multi-use trail will be good, the gap between Stanley Park, Garrison Point, the west portion (less sensitive) part of Fort York and Bathurst is galling.

Isn't that what the Bentway is for? There is also currently a path through Garrison Commons, although it isn't paved. The pedestrian bridge will link the Commons to Stanley Park. The bridge also touches down in Garrison Point to link it to the Commons and to Stanley Park. Hopefully once the bridge is in, the existing path will be upgraded.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Isn't that what the Bentway is for? There is also currently a path through Garrison Commons, although it isn't paved. The pedestrian bridge will link the Commons to Stanley Park. The bridge also touches down in Garrison Point to link it to the Commons and to Stanley Park. Hopefully once the bridge is in, the existing path will be upgraded.

My beef with The Bentway is that it will have a stupid convoluted crossing over Fort York, and then nothing over Bathurst.

More broadly, it's just such a vast unutilized direct connection between downtown and Liberty Village. The Fort York Bridge is a stop-gap.