[ADRM]

I sure am glad the Planning Department's extremely thinly stretched resources are continuing to be spent on a project at least a billion dollars short of fully funded while a mostly privately-funded version of almost the same thing is simultaneously being openly criticized and rejected out of hand by the Chief Planner.

 

[cplchanb]

I sure am glad the Planning Department's extremely thinly stretched resources are continuing to be spent on a project at least a billion dollars short of fully funded while a mostly privately-funded version of almost the same thing is simultaneously being openly criticized and rejected out of hand by the Chief Planner.

well...thats the beauty of buraucracy....

 

[pstogios]

I sure am glad the Planning Department's extremely thinly stretched resources are continuing to be spent on a project at least a billion dollars short of fully funded while a mostly privately-funded version of almost the same thing is simultaneously being openly criticized and rejected out of hand by the Chief Planner.

This is inacccruate. There are hundreds of millions of dollars in Section 37 development funds available. Of course it's not as simple as just taking out that money, but nonetheless, to say the city is at least a $billion short isn't fully accurate either.

http://torontoist.com/2016/09/torontoist-explains-the-uses-and-misuses-of-section-37/

 

[crs1026]

Well, don't be inaccurate in the other direction. Hypothetically, if you take the entire $300M which that article indicates the City has collected via Section 37, and add it to the $196M which the City has available as in-lieu-of-parkland funds per this report, the city is still half a billion dollars short of fully funded - assuming the cost will be $1B.

Doesn't feel that much closer to fully funded to me. And, draining either the Section 37 reserves or the in-lieu reserves for this one project is unrealistic.

But - whatever the numbers, the private interests and the public desire for the park will come together eventually, through negotiation. There will have to be compromises all round.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I sure am glad the Planning Department's extremely thinly stretched resources are continuing to be spent on a project at least a billion dollars short of fully funded while a mostly privately-funded version of almost the same thing is simultaneously being openly criticized and rejected out of hand by the Chief Planner.

I don't think planning has a choice given OCRA - they will have to study it on way or another. In any case @crs1026 is right, something will eventually be done because it is in both public and private interest to do so.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

I suspect the funding answer for Rail Deck Park, and possibly even the implementation, will come from the federal level. There's still the matter unresolved of ownership of the land...*jurisdiction of the land* let alone the air-rights above it. Last legal reference re: The Esplanade Corridor (USRC) I can find is:

[...]
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 all works done or to be done in order to give effect to the agreement hereinafter mentioned, as well as those affected by it, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.

They cannot, therefore, be considered as private works of railway companies. They are to all intents and purposes federal works remaining under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament, under section 92, par. 10, of the British North America Act.
[...]
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/9855/1/document.do

Ostensibly I'll have more to add to that later, it is being studied by a number of Toronto MPs.
A search is being done to find any amendments or later acts that render that finding inapplicable. So far, none are showing, and it's still the purview of Parliament.

ADRM is right, and we all know this...Toronto's coffers are not only almost dry, what's left is committed many times over to a list of other priorities. Yet again, and not entirely by poor civic governance alone, Toronto wears short pants. His Almighty Worship certainly doesn't help with his histrionics.

 

[steveintoronto]

I don't think planning has a choice given OCRA - they will have to study it on way or another. In any case @crs1026 is right, something will eventually be done because it is in both public and private interest to do so.

AoD

We'll see. If I was a City Planning honcho, either in the absence of ORCA providing title deeds or not, I'd call their bluff. "Go ahead, take it to the OMB". I suspect the OMB would defer to rule on the case, and as is their wont, refer it to Superior Court. In fact...lol...I look forward to it. Before any planning decisions can be made, actual ownership of these "air rights" must be proven, and shown to be proven.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We'll see. If I was a City Planning honcho, either in the absence of ORCA providing title deeds or not, I'd call their bluff. "Go ahead, take it to the OMB". I suspect the OMB would defer to rule on the case, and as is their wont, refer it to Superior Court. In fact...lol...I look forward to it. Before any planning decisions can be made, actual ownership of these "air rights" must be proven, and shown to be proven.

No doubt, but in lieu of that, if the city's goal is to have some park without having to pay the full cost, it may payoff to leverage that and settle.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

it may payoff to leverage that and settle.

I think the Feds might have something to say about that. From what I've discovered so far (and the search is now in more capable hands), even if the City has title to the land (And successive SCC cases named the City as owners) they don't have jurisdiction over it.

As to when the Men in Long Pants step in, or even if they do, remains to be seen. Given the optics of present events, the Feds would be kicking a Gift Horse for the Nation in the teeth if they didn't.

I think there's a couple more shoes to drop on this, one off them massive, and Orcas don't wear shoes. Not even short pants.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Article from Feb 2017 LAM that talked about the challenges and design choices for another raildeck park - Hudson Yards:

https://landscapearchitecturemagazine.org/2017/02/21/the-seven-foot-sandwich/

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Article from Feb 2017 LAM that talked about the challenges and design choices for another raildeck park - Hudson Yards:

https://landscapearchitecturemagazine.org/2017/02/21/the-seven-foot-sandwich/

AoD

Excellent article focusing on the many details not normally discussed, like this:

A ventilation system consisting of 15 large fans comparable in size to jet engines is embedded in the platform to remove the heat generated by covering over the trains and also to provide fresh air to the tracks below. But the ventilation system is not enough to cool the platform and the landscape that rests on top of it. Tests show that the top of the slab can reach temperatures of 105 degrees Fahrenheit during a heat wave, and heat generated by the trains below can cause the bottom of the slab to reach 150 degrees. Because of these unusual conditions, the plant roots above the slab would be in danger of baking.

I question the use of Glycol as a coolant though. Glycol is excellent for the task, but has one massive drawback, and this will happen: leakage. It is highly toxic to plant life. Although the thermal gradients are far lower with water, if it leaks, at least it will only be mildly toxic (it will inevitably carry some contaminants from circulating in metal and plastic pipes and pumps).

So far, any talk of Rail Deck Park has ignored the realities of how complex a task this is going to be, and the decking itself may be the easiest part.

 

[ADRM]

No word on whether they also discussed money trees.

 

[steveintoronto]

No word on whether they also discussed money trees.

Financing aside (even if they have clear title of ownership of the land) which will be incomprehensively massive (and already over-committed elsewhere if they have it), I'm a little taken aback at the depicted elevation. For some reason, I'd assumed the clearance above catenary would still allow the plane of the decking to be at Front St grade. What's shown is well above the bridges already traversing the USRC.

I note the handwritten note: "- narrowing of front st to allow for more gradual grade change to park". I can understand Keesmaat's enthusiasm for releasing this, but in the absence of some crucial details, it's just a little premature, if not counter-productive.

And just what is the status of ORCA's blowhole?

 

[crs1026]

Note the high level station platform....

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Note the high level station platform....

- Paul

Good point! I'd missed that, not that it changes the overhead clearance, but there *may* be some insight from the drawing, even if it is based on preliminary current thinking. Unmistakable was catenary on each track. That high-level platform is an island, or at least one or two bay tracks. Out of habit, I keep clicking on the pic to see more...even if it is just fantasy at this point in time.

Note also the space above the platform ceiling....hmmm...enough for another set of tracks? Stacking tracks (the lower ones sunk slightly) would add justification to having the deck so high, albeit I'd always projected a a ridge along the deck to accommodate that. If a mid-town tunnel isn't built, some way has to be found to increase track throughput for the USRC, and stacking under a deck would appear as a way to do it. It would be about as bright as NY's Penn Station, but decking alone tends to do that.