[Jacob Lisgar]

The city just adopted the parks facility master plan which includes park improvements and new community centres etc. throughout the city. Its going to cost multiple billions to build out. Never mind the increase in staffing costs for new rec centres and maintenance etc.
I think if the city can find billions they should be financing projects throughout the city as it might be hard to get the votes for a 2 billion dollar park downtown.

I agree that the population is growing significantly downtown but the planning department has know this for years and should have had their eyes on parkland 15 years ago when land was cheaper. I also don't think anyone has been moving downtown with the expectation that they will get a massive billion dollar park. They moved there because its close to work, transit, restaurants and entertainment and there is a ton of parks close by. Undergardiner, harbourfornt, Toronto Island, City Place.
I personally think this will sit unfunded and the money can be spent better on a gondola to the island, hehe. Or bury the Gardiner and build a park on top.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Burying the Gardiner is a multi-billion dollar project - it isn't going to happen at this point.

Not "parkland" really. A very expensive green roof with some shrubs. If they find a way to build it so it can be salt-free, they might live, and it might not fall down. It will be a nice place to walk condo-bound dogs. I'm calling it Poop Deck Park.

Wait, a John Tory-led project that will come down in price. Really?

Millennium Park and Maggie Daley Park certainly looked like real parks to me.

AoD

 

[ShonTron]

Not "parkland" really. A very expensive green roof with some shrubs. If they find a way to build it so it can be salt-free, they might live, and it might not fall down. It will be a nice place to walk condo-bound dogs. I'm calling it Poop Deck Park.

Wait, a John Tory-led project that will come down in price. Really?

 

[ShonTron]

In all seriousness, I agree that a poorly planned park will simply become yet another place for condo dwellers to take their dogs. Even more money will be necessary to make the park properly programmed and landscaped as a really pleasant place to be, like Trinity Bellwoods, or even Grange Park. I would also like to see the armoury at Moss Park kicked out, and work done to improve existing parks as well.

But with the possible exception of David Miller's seven years, we've had tight-fisted, non-visionary mayors. And each and every one of them - Miller included - focused more on the suburbs that the city core. While downtown (and to a lesser extent Humber Bay Shores, North York Centre, and Yonge and Eglinton) have been seeing all the residential growth, policies are made to protect low rise neighbourhoods. Yet while planning and tax policies protect those precious single-family homeowners, we haven't done much to help these four areas that have been taking almost all the growth. We drag our feet on the DRL. We spend $1.6 billion to keep up the Gardiner East largely to satisfy suburbanites and we didn't protect for larger downtown parks when there was a chance in the Lastman and Miller eras.

At least Tory's pushing something but I am not optimistic given the costs. He likes big capital spending, but not raising taxes to pay for and maintain these things.

 

[ADRM]

In all seriousness, I agree that a poorly planned park will simply become yet another place for condo dwellers to take their dogs. Even more money will be necessary to make the park properly programmed and landscaped as a really pleasant place to be, like Trinity Bellwoods, or even Grange Park. I would also like to see the armoury at Moss Park kicked out, and work done to improve existing parks as well.

But with the possible exception of David Miller's seven years, we've had tight-fisted, non-visionary mayors. And each and every one of them - Miller included - focused more on the suburbs that the city core. While downtown (and to a lesser extent Humber Bay Shores, North York Centre, and Yonge and Eglinton) have been seeing all the residential growth, policies are made to protect low rise neighbourhoods. Yet while planning and tax policies protect those precious single-family homeowners, we haven't done much to help these four areas that have been taking almost all the growth. We drag our feet on the DRL. We spend $1.6 billion to keep up the Gardiner East largely to satisfy suburbanites and we didn't protect for larger downtown parks when there was a chance in the Lastman and Miller eras.

At least Tory's pushing something but I am not optimistic given the costs. He likes big capital spending, but not raising taxes to pay for and maintain these things.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Small tidbit - but the Gardiner needs $1.3 billion regardless of whether you demolish it or retain it. the retain option costs "only" $300 million more than the demolish option. It's disingenous to claim the entire $1.6 billion is being spent to rebuild the 2km between the DVP and Jarvis. The majority of the money is going into rebuilding the whole thing from the 427 eastward, It's not really "voluntary" spending.


I expect quality landscaping on this. They aren't going to put in a June Callwood here.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Small tidbit - but the Gardiner needs $1.3 billion regardless of whether you demolish it or retain it. the retain option costs "only" $300 million more than the demolish option. It's disingenous to claim the entire $1.6 billion is being spent to rebuild the 2km between the DVP and Jarvis. The majority of the money is going into rebuilding the whole thing from the 427 eastward, It's not really "voluntary" spending.

I am unable to locate the report quoted by Keenan, but here is what he has to say about that:

In 2014, when the plan to repair and rebuild it from the 427 to Logan Ave. was developed, the total cost was estimated at $1.9 billion. Then last year, they changed the estimate to $2.6 billion. Now, after further study and calculation, they say the cost is $3.637 billion. That’s a 91 per cent price increase in two years, if you’re trying to do the math. And apparently we’re footing the bill locally, with no help from Ottawa.
...
The boulevard option was projected to cost $326 million in upfront capital, while the hybrid was said to cost $414 million. Revisions to the hybrid plan meant the cost increased to $1 billion in August 2015. Now, we learn, that portion has a capital cost of $1.492 billion. It has gone from costing 25 per cent more than the boulevard to 457 per cent more.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...ses-spark-the-end-of-the-gardiner-keenan.html

Located the Exec committee report:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-98727.pdf

Also:

As noted above, the $2.6 billion cost for the Revised Gardiner Expressway Strategic Plan included $524 million for the “base case” design of the Gardiner East EA Hybrid
preferred alternative. With the identification and adoption of Hybrid “Alternative Design 3” , additional capital funding of $194 million will be required, bringing the order of magnitude cost estimate for the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard East Reconfiguration to $718 million. This cost estimate was developed for the purposes of comparing costs for the various design alternatives presented in the EA, and will undergo further refinement through the development of a Class C cost estimate, as described in the Gardiner East EA Staff Report considered by Council at its meeting of March 31, 2016. It is noted that the engineering consultant working on the cost estimates has consistently advised of a potential variance of up to plus or minus 20%

AoD

 

[innsertnamehere]

Much like the SRT replacement debacle - cost escalations occur in the selected alternative as it moves forward, but not the unselected alternative. It becomes unfair to consider the at grade option at its original price as it likely would have experience escalating costs as well. Just like Byford's report on the SLRT stating it would cost IIRC $2.5 billion today, I'm sure the at grade option once it made it through preliminary design and had the DBFOM model applied it would have cost significantly more than $326 million.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Much like the SRT replacement debacle - cost escalations occur in the selected alternative as it moves forward, but not the unselected alternative. It becomes unfair to consider the at grade option at its original price as it likely would have experience escalating costs as well. Just like Byford's report on the SLRT stating it would cost IIRC $2.5 billion today, I'm sure the at grade option once it made it through preliminary design and had the DBFOM model applied it would have cost significantly more than $326 million.

I am sure there will be cost inflation - I highly doubt demolition will inflate as much as building anew + renewal. More troubling is how one basically chose/sold an option based on BS numbers.

AoD

 

[ADRM]

Here's the deck supporting the RDP item at ExComm today: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-109483.pdf

 

[Leo_Chan]

Here's the deck supporting the RDP item at ExComm today: https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2017/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-109483.pdf

I see what you did there.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the presentation:

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Additional reports in the Rail Deck Park subpage:

Engineering & Costing Study Report: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/u...2017-11-24.RDP_.EngineeringCosting.Study_.pdf
Appendices: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/97bf-FINAL_AODA_RDP_ENGSTUDYAPPENDICES_RED.pdf

From the Appendices:

AoD

 

[innsertnamehere]

Interesting in that the sections show a building where the Metrolinx Station entrance would be at the corner of Front and Spadina..

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Interesting in that the sections show a building where the Metrolinx Station entrance would be at the corner of Front and Spadina..

Makes sense, MX owns that piece of land.

AoD