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 

crs1026 said:
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
Click to expand...

I think this was going to be the case all along- however, it's really up to the citizens and the city to ensure that the development is successful and attractive (not the way it is now).
 
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 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.
Click to expand...

The cynic in me thinks that Rail Deck Park in its entirety was a bartering tactic from the start. Start high, establish a massive park with an expensive price tag. Allow developer to enter, negotiate park size, make them pay for it. Half of initial park for no cost = win for city! Splashy photo-ops for all the politicians!

I don't think the outcome is a bad thing, I'm just very disinterested in believing that the public is getting the whole truth of this pre-established play. All halls of power have back rooms and offline proxies. If someone doesn't hold up their end of the bargain, then it will go to the courts.
 
Perhaps this appears somewhere on previous pages, but notice of upcoming public meeting in Cressy's latest newsletter:

Rail Deck Park - Official Plan Amendment consultation
Date: Tuesday, June 13, 2017
Time: 6:30 pm
Location: Metro Hall, Rotunda
 
DonValleyRainbow said:
The cynic in me thinks that Rail Deck Park in its entirety was a bartering tactic from the start. Start high, establish a massive park with an expensive price tag. Allow developer to enter, negotiate park size, make them pay for it. Half of initial park for no cost = win for city! Splashy photo-ops for all the politicians!
Click to expand...

I share your belief. If this is how it actually plays out, ie the City drives a good deal, I will be delighted. The cynic in me thinks fears a worse outcome. Such as - the negotiation setting a new precedent for what's acceptable in a high rise.... we can expect the City to be very permissive with height or amenities in order to maximise the space set aside for parkland.... and that precedent spreads to other settings where the City isn't getting a benefit in return. Or, the courts/OMB ask why so little parkland has been created to date, notwithstanding that the past development will have paid a fair amount in fees in lieu of parkland.... money which the City may have found other uses for. And then the tribunal decides that hey, if the City wasn't defending its rights to parkland before, why does it get a break here?

I'm just not sure that the City has the upper hand in this kind of negotiation. And, with politicians involved.......yeesh.

Let's hope for the best.

- Paul
 
ADRM said:
Not sure if this has been posted previously, but City project website: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=68d154c8ab469510VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
Click to expand...

yep.

ChesterCopperpot said:
New city website on the project - http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=68d154c8ab469510VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
Click to expand...

DonValleyRainbow said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Now GO electricification and rail deck park kind of goes hand-in hand. If the beginnings of both happens by the late 2020s, then they may have to be congruent -- pillar locations (even for temporary gantries before deck supports, or gantries that double as future deck supports -- or at least the gantry foundations thereof). How do things progress?

This is going to be an interesting planning nightmare given how close GO electrification is to the desired Rail Deck Park construction timelines -- I hope they're already thinking ahead in these elements.

I definitely look forward to a Rail Deck Park. That said -- planning nightmare (USRC resignalling, GO electrification, gantries, etc)
 
Didn't the Vancouver Whitecaps owner want to build a stadium above the rail tracks in Vancouver?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top