News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

DonValleyRainbow said:
and then nothing over Bathurst
Click to expand...
Bathurst is a pinch point for the USRC, or I'd suggest a trail under the bridge, as I have some question as to how wide the Esplanade Corridor is, and whether the bridge allowance takes it all. If not, then boring a culvert or digging an underpass next to the tracks but still on City property might be an option....or! Suspending a bridge over the tracks and Bathurst, somehow avoiding the Bathurst bridge, and continuing east of Bathurst in some manner.

What is beyond dispute from my understanding of reading the terms of the statutes as that crossing the rails by bridge or underpass must be allowed. Ostensibly with the 'legal analysis' due later this year, a map will be published.
 
We need to preserve a corridor just east of the Ordnance Triangle, so that eventually the Gardiner could be diverted north, east of Strachan, such that it passes over the tracks to Front St.. It could either end there or continue underground, exiting just east of Bathurst on Adelaide and Richmond. This would allow for the future removal of the existing elevated Gardiner expressway. Continuing the tunnel east to the CBD or the DVP is a bigger project, probably for another generation. If the Rail Deck Park extended east of Bathurst and had development facing the western edge of the park, the expressway would be hidden from view and we'd have continuous park running from Front St. through Fort York, with a kind of Central Park effect of a park surrounded by towers. I would plan the best, most permanent parts of the Bentway for the stretch just east of Strachan, as we'll likely have that for centuries, whereas the Bentway approaching Bathurst and east of Bathurst hopefully won't have the Gardiner above it in the not too distant future. It may sound like wishful thinking, but we should allow for that possibility.
 
Euphoria said:
We need to preserve a corridor just east of the Ordnance Triangle, so that eventually the Gardiner could be diverted north, east of Strachan, such that it passes over the tracks to Front St.. It could either end there or continue underground, exiting just east of Bathurst on Adelaide and Richmond. This would allow for the future removal of the existing elevated Gardiner expressway. Continuing the tunnel east to the CBD or the DVP is a bigger project, probably for another generation. If the Rail Deck Park extended east of Bathurst and had development facing the western edge of the park, the expressway would be hidden from view and we'd have continuous park running from Front St. through Fort York, with a kind of Central Park effect of a park surrounded by towers. I would plan the best, most permanent parts of the Bentway for the stretch just east of Strachan, as we'll likely have that for centuries, whereas the Bentway approaching Bathurst and east of Bathurst hopefully won't have the Gardiner above it in the not too distant future. It may sound like wishful thinking, but we should allow for that possibility.
Click to expand...

Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion
 
The planning problem in Toronto continues of looking at single projects rather than a comprehensive vision incorporating parks, transit, roads, built form...You can't plan the Rail Deck Park without considering all factors. That's why Millenium Park and Michigan Ave. in Chicago are so much better than anything built or planned in Toronto. Consider the RDP with the RER station below it, the opportunity to reconnect the city to the lake and restore the southern approach to Fort York through continuous park, the built form around the park, and so on. We keep losing the forest for the trees, the grand vision for the one-off project.
 
Euphoria said:
The planning problem in Toronto continues of looking at single projects rather than a comprehensive vision incorporating parks, transit, roads, built form...You can't plan the Rail Deck Park without considering all factors. That's why Millenium Park and Michigan Ave. in Chicago are so much better than anything built or planned in Toronto. Consider the RDP with the RER station below it, the opportunity to reconnect the city to the lake and restore the southern approach to Fort York through continuous park, the built form around the park, and so on. We keep losing the forest for the trees, the grand vision for the one-off project.
Click to expand...

Agree to disagree on Boston, and I understand your perspective, but you are inserting a fantasy freeway into a topic that has not been tabled as an idea by anyone else (not the City, the province or any major corporation). We are talking about Rail Deck Park without a freeway in its scope. It's an f-ing park for people, supported by a deck over a railway. A freeway would be a completely different undertaking, and you can take your idea to Roads: Ontario/GTA Highways Discussion.
 
It's short-term thinking to ignore factors with wide ranging consequences. Please also bring some historical perspective. Burying the Gardiner was one option on the table until Tory removed it. There may be more interest down the road in simply demolishing it. Let's keep our options open, which means preserving a corridor to offload the Gardiner. We can build around and hide the corridor just as we're building over and hiding the train tracks.
 
Via @ProjectEnd on Twitter, OPA application for 3.9m sq ft of development on top of the rail corridor:
The proposal is to develop a rail corridor overbuild (deck) over the existing active rail corridor to accommodate development, while maintaining the rail activities. The ORCA Project proposes a mixed-use and open space development, consisting of 8 buildings with a combined gross floor area (GFA) of 368,100 m2. The proposal includes the portion of the Rail Corridor bounded by Front Street West between Spadina and Bathurst; Blue Jays Way; Ice Boat Terrace; and Bathurst Street.
Click to expand...
 
Huge money grab resulting in parking garage topped by a green roof you can't see from street level which will barely hold the dog poop from the high-rises on both sides. Did I get that right?
 
CapitalSeven said:
Huge money grab resulting in parking garage topped by a green roof you can't see from street level which will barely hold the dog poop from the high-rises on both sides. Did I get that right?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't be that strong with my characterization - there are worthy elements, but as it stands right now the park feels more like a landscaping afterthought.

AoD
 
Now I'm getting really scared! Just reading further back on Statutes creating the Esplanade, long before the railways were granted concessions on it. and I see reference to the City having jurisdiction over land adjacent "forever" (either by proxy of governing officials or directly). This may have been altered by granting land to railways outside the later USRC due to the first Union Station being to the south of the present one, and it would take a proficient legal team to make sure the powers stated following are still intact, but this is astounding reading: (keep in mind that the "waterfront" and "docks" are directly adjacent at this point in time, and CP at least was granted/sold/exchanged some of this land for when the present USRC was established later)

upload_2017-5-24_22-38-3.png

upload_2017-5-24_22-40-15.png

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

The "letter" cited is one year short of two centuries ago...later Acts and Statutes would render that altered, but quoting the latest citations I can find leaves the USRC intact as City property. If Metrolinx (by absorbing GO Transit) hadn't incorporated as a Federally Regulated Railway, even the Feds via the Transportation and Railway Acts, would have no say over the City's use or ownership (other than imposition on Billy Bishop Airport operations).

That was a fairly good firework show last night in Toronto. There's going to be an even better one on University Ave later this year, right adjacent to City Hall. The Ontario Superior Court. How apt...

Toronto finds its lost balls...
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-5-24_22-38-3.png
    upload_2017-5-24_22-38-3.png
    154.9 KB · Views: 304
  • upload_2017-5-24_22-40-15.png
    upload_2017-5-24_22-40-15.png
    204.4 KB · Views: 303
Last edited:
I'm not sophisticated enough in land use planning to catch all the meanings of the staff report, but to my inexpert eyes it seems to offer this translation
- the Railway Lands have been gradually developed since the mid 80's, and the amount of parkland set aside in the Lands to date is far below guidelines
- the Official Plan does contemplate various forms of development on the site, leaning towards the high rise
- there have been past development proposals for some of the tract, and the City has never claimed parkland creation as the overriding priority for land use when responding to those

All of this leads me to believe that the "owners" of the lands (and who they may be is an interesting legal question, but the answer doen't change my point, so I won't digress into that) are likely to assert right to developing some of the tract we are talking about. The amount of money at stake would be huge, so a trip to the courts and/or OMB (under existing rules, at that) is likely. Meanwhile, the City may have good reason to argue for the park, but it isn't a slam dunk case in court. And - the solution will be very expensive.

So I'd predict that the City will end up in negotiation with developers (perhaps after a battle over ownership) over how much of this tract is made into a park, versus how much is opened up for high rise development. The City will want to negotiate because a) court is always risky and b) the land left for development mitigates the overall cost to the City.

The result may still be a very attractive bit of public space, that we are happy to have, but it will take a long time, and a lot of work. No one should be waxing poetic about a huge open space like a mini-Central Park. It will be a compromise between development and parkland. It will include new high rise towers.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
All of this leads me to believe that the "owners" of the lands (and who they may be is an interesting legal question, but the answer doesn't change my point, so I won't digress into that) are likely to assert right to developing some of the tract we are talking about.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that. I tried to scan through it looking for any sign of a result on legal search on title, couldn't see one, and I'm not in absorption mode at the moment. Checked the media, could find no interpretation let alone mention of this, perhaps later today TorStar will have something?

crs1026 said:
The amount of money at stake would be huge, so a trip to the courts and/or OMB (under existing rules, at that) is likely.
Click to expand...
Even if title search shows the City in complete ownership/possession of land rights and subsequent air-rights, I'm sure it will be challenged in Superior Court, if for nothing else, to clarify previous sales/use of land that didn't have clear title in the past.

It's that title search and subsequent court proceedings that's the real story for me. If the City does have clear title to all that was theirs a century ago, then TO is Fat City. If not, then the costs to do this render it as Münchhausen Park.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top