- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
steveintoronto
Superstar
Yeah, I just finished reading that, and believe me, I'm no fan of the story behind the story, but as to 'proximity' to rail yards...I have a conflicted view.
In many other parts of the world, New York, London and Paris immediately come to mind, living directly adjacent to rail yards, many/most far busier than Mimico will ever be, is not only accepted, it barely makes a dent on the audio-meter.
Here's the problem for Metrolinx: *DIESEL*! Get rid of the diesel trains, and it's vastly less of an issue. Comparison in Toronto? How about the TTC yards? Electric shunting and brake squeal, and some ground rumble still intrude, but nothing like a diesel yard would. The Davisville yards were the subject of huge public backlash in the early fifties, and almost all of it baseless. Ditto the Greenwood yards.
The problem isn't proximity. It's the type of vehicle. Also consider the opportunity to deck-over the yards. Once again, the Sunnyside yards in NYC are being eyed for being decked-over. (Costs put the kibosh on that from the Moses plan back in the last century and onward. Those costs are now deemed worth it)(The Sunnyside yards are the largest in the Americas, if not the world. It used to be swampland)
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
Many places I visited in Europe, residential buildings/towers were right on the property line next to stations and the RR corridor, with windows wide open and people looking out.
ML has been pushing 100' setback for buildings as well 2' crash walls next to their corridors. In many places they want parking structure to occupy that 100' setback with the Paradigm at Burlington GO Station as an example. Then you have the condos at Islington on CP line.
I have no issues having signs posted and warning clause on the property deed saying buyers were warn about the noise and they have no option to complain about the noise once they sign the deed or agreement. Buyer be aware is the rule for all development next or near RR corridors and yards. This includes all Transit yards as well.
steveintoronto
Superstar
It's a point of discussion that has to be revisited. The problem isn't Toronto's as much as the Province and their outdated concepts of what 'civilized living' is. Torontonians themselves though are due a good part of the blame for aspiring to be "world class" without being aware of what that really means.
In the three world cities I mentioned prior, trains and subways can be seen exiting and entering under buildings, under parks, under rivers! And have done so for well over a century.
Toronto still has massive amounts of idle space that could be used, and unsuitable as park space in many cases. And they should be allowed to build on them.
Of course, Toronto is still well behind times in mixed use categories, even having the CRE category:
https://www.toronto.ca/zoning/bylaw_amendments/ZBL_NewProvision_Chapter50.htm
Versions of this are being used, but nothing like being done in real "world class cities" where it's not only considered best use practice, it's also *chic*! Brooklyn is having a huge resurgence of light industry on ground floor with retail in the front, commercial the second, and residential above. Mind you, some of it is historical, and remnants of greater eras in the past, as it is in London, Paris, etc.
Addendum: Just researching for reference to my claims above, and the *Feds* also have a hand in how ridiculous events have become, not in terms of shady builders and councillors, as per Judson, but in terms of the shuttered mindset of Canadians on better ways of doing things:
https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/tcss/RSA_review/chapter7-394.htmTransport Canada
Chapter 7: Proximity Issues
During the Panel's cross-Canada consultation process, we experienced first-hand a vivid example of the risks of proximity when trains and people interact. Travelling from Calgary to Edmonton in a CP track evaluation car, we had stopped briefly near a crossing at Wetaskiwin, Alberta, where there are schools and residential and commercial development on both sides of the railway tracks. It was mid-afternoon, and students were emerging from school. We watched as a young boy, not more than 10 years old, with his bicycle and backpack, attempted to crawl under a tank car in a freight train that was waiting for the main track to clear. A waiting motorist honked, and a railway employee came to reprimand the boy. In the meantime, while we watched in horror, an older boy left a group of children waiting at the crossing and climbed over the couplers between cars mere seconds before the train started to move again. We were told that such incidents are daily occurrences for the railways.
Wetaskiwin, Alberta, April 2007
The near tragedy described above has served as a constant reminder to us of one of the primary objectives of the Railway Safety Act - to promote and provide for the safety of the public. It clearly demonstrated that the encroachment of new development near railways, along with heavier highway and rail traffic, leads to the increased interaction of people and trains and inevitable proximity issues. We believe, however, that these issues can be at least partially resolved by good community outreach on the part of the railway companies, and the enhancement of ongoing public education and contribution programs.
7.1 New Development Near Railway Property
During the 19th century, many communities in Canada sprang up around railways - their link to the rest of the country and the world. Over the next century, for demographic and economic reasons, these communities expanded and many railways moved their yards and operating facilities away from the highly populated town centres. In the late 20th century, increasing numbers of residential and commercial developments were built in close proximity to railway properties, both in the downtown cores and in outlying areas. This trend continues today. In some cases, as we witnessed only too vividly, development can result in a residential area on one side of the track and schools or recreational facilities on the other, in spite of the obvious safety concerns relating to crossings and trespassing.
Residents of the new developments complain not only about crossing safety and train speeds through their community, but also about blocked crossings, the noise, pollution and vibrations emanating from the trains and their yards, and the quantity of dangerous goods being carried on trains through densely populated areas. The Panel received many submissions regarding these issues, from residents in urban and rural municipalities alike.
7.1.1 Current Process for New Development
When will our municipalities stop allowing new homes to be built so close to railway tracks?
Luba Lallouz Submission.
The issue of new development near railways is a multi-jurisdictional challenge, since land-use planning and development is both a provincial and a municipal responsibility, while the major railways and their rights-of-way are federally regulated. There are no consistent consultation protocols or land-use appeal mechanisms across the country, and provincial and municipal land zoning and permit procedures vary widely. Under the Railway Safety Act (s.8(1)), a railway company must give notice of a proposed railway work to adjacent landowners and the municipality. Municipalities and developers, however, are not required to provide similar notice to railway companies when they plan new development near railway lines.
With few exceptions, railways have no power beyond their rail right of way and cannot control adjacent landowners' land use. … [A] federal regulator can cause a railway to address a proximity complaint, but has little or no authority over a … municipal authority whose inadequate planning may have … led to the incompatible land use situation in the first place.1
Many of the submissions we received, from railway companies, municipalities, provinces, affected residents, Members of Parliament, sector associations and the general public, expressed concern about the proliferation of new development near railways. Several municipalities wanted better coordination between regional interests and railway companies to minimize risks to people and the environment. The District of North Vancouver, for example, stressed the need for federal guidelines and enforcement powers to mitigate the impacts of rail activities in urban areas, and the participation of municipalities in this process. The City of Côte Saint-Luc cited the need for robust consultation and a dispute resolution process that would oblige municipalities and railways to consult in planning matters, saying there is increasing pressure from developers and private landowners to develop along the railway corridor and in close proximity to the railway yards.2 The Province of Manitoba raised similar issues:
[...continues at length...]
WTF! lol..."Only in Canada you say? Pity". What an ass-backwards approach to the situation...this is like something from a century ago.
I'm still researching this, but thoroughly wish for others to weigh in on this. It's essential to keep the dirty hands of a few in the Judson case apart from the bigger issue however.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Further to the above, this is indicative of how NYC approaches these situations, and not surprisingly, Vancouver's revisit on the issue is linked in the notes (Globe did a series of stories on it two years back):
Note how the Feds in the US were also complicit in skewing sprawl and inefficiency in land use and affordability!
https://aging.ny.gov/livableny/resourcemanual/planningzoninganddevelopment/ii2g.pdf
Report above is five pages.
I'm trying to find the original NYC manifesto study on this, and will link. Last time I checked, it was on a Brooklyn website. Unfortunately my copy was lost last computer system terminal crash.
(Edit: Found it. Refer to chapter starting page 35:
http://167.153.240.175/downloads/pdf/NYEO.pdf )
Addendum: Still searching as per above, and this showed. It makes an opposite argument, based on studying Toronto, than what NYC is promoting now. I have to question the motivation of this, but will study it further: (Caveat: There may be a pre-ordained interest group behind this study)
Journal of the American Planning Association
Volume 84, 2018 - Issue 1
Note how the Feds in the US were also complicit in skewing sprawl and inefficiency in land use and affordability!
https://aging.ny.gov/livableny/resourcemanual/planningzoninganddevelopment/ii2g.pdf
Report above is five pages.
I'm trying to find the original NYC manifesto study on this, and will link. Last time I checked, it was on a Brooklyn website. Unfortunately my copy was lost last computer system terminal crash.
(Edit: Found it. Refer to chapter starting page 35:
http://167.153.240.175/downloads/pdf/NYEO.pdf )
Addendum: Still searching as per above, and this showed. It makes an opposite argument, based on studying Toronto, than what NYC is promoting now. I have to question the motivation of this, but will study it further: (Caveat: There may be a pre-ordained interest group behind this study)
Journal of the American Planning Association
Volume 84, 2018 - Issue 1
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01944363.2017.1406315
Attachments
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
One only has to go to NYC, Chicago and Phil to see how close the L lines are from buildings as well hear the noise from them.
As what is a World Class City, that is debatable, as it means different things to various people.
The problem in NA is the fact people want the country sound in the city, with the city going to sleep early at night and close on weekend when we are a 7/24 society today.
Having transit part of buildings is a must as well having building being a mixture of many things including having schools in them. Converting industrial buildings to mix use is a must as well preserving them. One only has to go to Detroit to see vacant towers being rebuild as mix use and resorting them to their original looks.
A good portion of the public want low density, as well not dealing with the root of the problem related to traffic and gridlock. At the same time, not willing to pay the high cost to support the low density as well having transit to support it.
Amare
Senior Member
This is honestly one of the dumbest planning decisions i've ever seen. There's no reason whatsoever for this land to be re-zoned as residential. If Dunpar really wanted to build townhomes in the area, there are plot of land scattered throughout the area that could have been used without re-zoning industrial land, especially around Willowbrook. I'm curious what exactly DiCiano and Grimes cooked up that made this land so attractive to Dunpar.
I know it would be costly, but couldn't Metrolinx have theoretically expropriated the land?
I know it would be costly, but couldn't Metrolinx have theoretically expropriated the land?
steveintoronto
Superstar
IIRC, they had that option. It pitted Metrolinx against the City, with the City's own staff potentially being called as witnesses to testify against their own employer, the City, before the OMB.
(Edit: CBC coverage of story here, looks like they scooped TorStar on this:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/city-council...-comes-with-noise-warning-to-buyers-1.4619536 )
But there's two separate issues going on here. One being the *aptness* of allowing residential this close to 'industrial' (and given the right factors, that could/should be allowed, albeit a point of discussion) and the second being the *apparent* illegalities behind the City's decision, even to the point of Tory going against Planning's own stance to further the cause of Tory's own project: SmartTrack.
I suspect there'll be some follow-on stories in the press examining this.
Since I posted what I did prior, I've come across a number of studies, one this year from Uni of Waterloo, making a case against mixed zoning, a nebulous term which makes discussion difficult unless defined.
There's a lot more to come on this situation. What I can conclude is that one way of dealing with a situ like this is partial decking over. Erecting 'sound walls' is rather ineffective and sloppy, especially for multi-floor buildings. Decking over for a required distance would not only contain most of the intrusive sound, the area above can be used for development itself....or even a park, but that complicates cost recovery.
I haven't had the time to pore over these, but they will come up in press discussion I'm sure:
(Edit: I've got to cry foul on these links! They merely cite the report I posted prior which I question. More on this later)
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
April 16
Looks like some movement for the site as site being clear by a small crew.
Mistake by Metrolinx part not going after this site as well the cement plant
Looks like some movement for the site as site being clear by a small crew.
Mistake by Metrolinx part not going after this site as well the cement plant
Amare
Senior Member
Ah one of the horrid legacies of Justin DiCiano continues to go ahead.
In just a few short years we'll be hearing of these residents whining about all the rail activity in the yard, then they will demand Metrolinx shut down Willowbrook.
In just a few short years we'll be hearing of these residents whining about all the rail activity in the yard, then they will demand Metrolinx shut down Willowbrook.
UrbanDan
Active Member
I'm surprised that there is no push for additional density here, in the light of everything proposed around Mimico GO station!?
The problem on this site is the proximity to the noisy rail yard, and the City is already nervous about the proximity of housing here to that (the City rejected housing here: it was on OMB decision that cleared the way for it, with low-rise industrial/office buildings along the southern edge directly facing the GO Willowbrook yard).
42
drum118
Superstar
By the looks of things, this is a dead project now. The land las been level and clear and I haven't seen anything taking place on it since I shot it in April 2021. Not worth shooting these days.
It was the wrong project for the site.
Maybe something will happen if and when the cement plant close next door with that land becoming part of this project or Metrolinx buys up both property which they should have in the first place.
It was the wrong project for the site.
Maybe something will happen if and when the cement plant close next door with that land becoming part of this project or Metrolinx buys up both property which they should have in the first place.
Amare
Senior Member
Hmm interesting, i'm so tempted to speak on the former City Councillor who had his hand on the affairs of this land but i'll let it go this time.
All to say, I hope this project is completely dead and hopefully Metrolinx expropriates here.
klmx
New Member
https://torontonewswire.com/finally...d-74-townhomes-to-be-built-on-judson-st-site/
Read this yesterday. Is the project still alive?
Read this yesterday. Is the project still alive?