[officedweller]

Heres a report from the city on various options for construction. They almost all involve cutting down those trees because the station Entrance is not the only thing that has to be accomplished here. To construct the new station cavern, ML will need a mineshaft. And unless ML is going to be tearing down some of the nearby buildings there is no other open space for them to do this keyhole digging in. University park or not.

View attachment 454170View attachment 454171View attachment 454172View attachment 454173View attachment 454174View attachment 454175View attachment 454176View attachment 454177View attachment 454178

If they called the "keyhole" the "access shaft" it would be a lot clearer to people what they are proposing.
You can also see that the ticketing hall of Osgoode Station limits how far to the west you can shift the access shaft without closing Osgoode during construction
(i.e. can't dig the access shaft under the northbound lanes only because that's not big enough).
You might be able to close off the southbound lanes plus the grounds of Campbell House to build an access shaft on the NW corner, but that doesn't give Metrolinx the prized NE corner .
The report says that if they built the primary stationhouse on one of the other corners, the old NE stair would be overloaded.
Solution could just be to close all the old narrow stairs and underground passages and force people to cross the street at grade to a new stationhouse on the NW or SW corner.

 

[T3G]

View attachment 454213

Posting the same (unfunny) meme twice does not magically lend more credence to your argument.

 

[rbt]

Ok then how would you stage the construction and what would you do?

For construction? We have the option of doing the exact same thing Metrolinx plans for Queen and Yonge. They're already closing Queen to through traffic and relocating the streetcar tracks. Few will be impacted doing that same trick at University as they're already going to be avoiding Queen. York has sufficient capacity for traffic heading to the City Hall parking garage.

That said, I don't really have an issue with the current plans.

 

[dusk]

Slowing down construction of crucial transit that serves the needs of millions of torontonians because of trees will never stop being funny.

Cut the trees and get to work. I love nature but I’ll be first in line to clear cut these trees myself.

Once the site is done, we can plant 2-3 times the number of trees.

We need a LOT of transit yesterday. We’re doomed if a handful of trees are going to stop us.

 

[crs1026]

Slowing down construction of crucial transit that serves the needs of millions of torontonians because of trees will never stop being funny.

Cut the trees and get to work. I love nature but I’ll be first in line to clear cut these trees myself.

Once the site is done, we can plant 2-3 times the number of trees.

We need a LOT of transit yesterday. We’re doomed if a handful of trees are going to stop us.

It’s not about the number of trees, and the amount of shade cover. Metrolinx has assured that they will install largeish trees that will quickly (in the context of a decade of construction, that is) replace the existing shade canopy.

It’s about the fact that this site has been curated and conserved for over 200 years as a public space, and used as such to the benefit of the entire city. So the custodianship of that space is not to be handed to an agency with a narrow mandate, even if that mandate is transit. And one does not let the fruit of that conservation just get demolished one day, no matter how great the need, because it’s a fundamental stripping away of what we have built in the city. It’s no different than building a transit line and then abandoning it for something else. And a fundamental abandonment of proper decisionmaking with proper public input.

If you listened to the injunction hearing yesterday (I did, for a lot of it) - Metrolinx’ lawyer made it clear that they had made the decision a long time ago and the more recent public dialog was only undertaken because they had some slack time in their schedule and they figured the Parsons study would not hold them up. As it happened, Parsons itself did not deliver to its original timeline, so by the time the study was available the forestry crew was already on the clock. And since they felt they had the legal right to act unilaterally all along, they were not halting the train. They handed over the Parsons report as a “nail in the coffin” rather than as food for thought.

why do people think that they know more than engineers who have spent 6 years developing this transit line?

We don’t. But engineering is supposed to serve the public good, and not the reverse. Engineers take direction from the public and apply their skills to a design, they don’t tell the public what to build. (although they are respected for their knowledge and aadvice)

I’m sure that any number of engineering firms would be happy to take another look. Ml loves “international design competitions”…. maybe this is the place for one. If one looks to the UK, the Elizabeth line was not built without some public sacrifices, but it was routed around equally challenging constraints in an urban space where there are many treasures that are not to be destroyed..

What I do know is that University Avenue itself would make a lovely laydown area. Just put up a ton of pylons, narrow traffic to one or two lanes each way, and there’s your problem solved. Metrolinx made it work on Eglinton, it will work here.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

Injunction to prevent cutting of the trees granted, through at least February 10th.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/osgoode-hall-metrolinx-tree-removal-1.6737705

Reasons to be released later this morning.

 

[waterloowarrior]

Is there an arborist's report (or some other official study) that confirms all of the trees to be cut down are 200+ years old?

I don't ask to cause trouble but I've never seen anyone mention a report, just the media repeating that some people say the trees are that old.

Here's two official sources from the LSO itself...other than a 100 year old ash tree (which is likely at risk from EAB), they are all likely planted post WW2

https://lawsocietyontario.azureedge.net/media/lso/media/legacy/pdf/a/au/audio-tour-grounds-transcript-english.pdf

"The trees are the dominant feature of the grounds and have been the greatest source of garden
expenses for the Law Society. Contrary to popular belief, few if any of the trees go back further than
World War Two, and there has been a lot of turnover over the years. Life is hard for city trees.

Many of our trees, including the lindens, honey locusts, and flowering crab apples, date from 1965, and as time
goes on, the tree cover will continue to change. Our current replacement policy favours native species
such as the red oak, the Eastern white pine, the American beech and the hop-hornbeam."
"

Osgoode Hall

osgoode-hall.stqry.app

"The Trees
Trees are the dominant feature of the Osgoode Hall grounds. They have been the greatest source of gardening expenses for the Law Society. None of the trees are from the original landscaping plan, but the grounds have a mature tree canopy with at least one tree over 100 years old, one of the largest remaining Ash trees in the city, on the south-west corner of the property."

 

[rbt]

Slowing down construction of crucial transit that serves the needs of millions of torontonians because of [desires of Torontonians for quality in other things too].

Adjusted your comment.

People in the city want multiple things that enhance quality of life. Metrolinx is causing delays and creating conflict by not doing basic consultations early in the design process to see if the population requires (yes, requires: see court injunction) them to maintain or contribute to other quality of life features.

If the lawyers win, it's entirely Metrolinx's fault that the design needs to be done again. The opinion and concerns of those at Osgoode Hall has not changed in the last few years.

 

[picard102]

We need a LOT of transit yesterday.

Sorry to tell you, that's not a possibility. Adjusting their plans isn't going to make this line any slower or faster to complete. It will take a decade. Expecting it to happen quickly is fantasy.

 

[W. K. Lis]

When they built the Bloor-Danforth subway (Line 2), they built it mostly cut-n-cover. They cut down trees, bull-dozed the houses, and dug down. After building the tunnel infrastructure, they filled it in and planted grass and trees.

The following (from link) is looking west from the Runnymede Station.

 

[MrGoose]

Posting the same (unfunny) meme twice does not magically lend more credence to your argument.

You with the Motte : Umm actually it’s not about the trees. It’s about (aesthetics, community consultation, heritage etc.)

Ward8 with the Bailey : Actually it is about the trees and these trees in specific!!!

 

[ARG1]

It’s about the fact that this site has been curated and conserved for over 200 years as a public space, and used as such to the benefit of the entire city. So the custodianship of that space is not to be handed to an agency with a narrow mandate, even if that mandate is transit. And one does not let the fruit of that conservation just get demolished one day, no matter how great the need, because it’s a fundamental stripping away of what we have built in the city. It’s no different than building a transit line and then abandoning it for something else. And a fundamental abandonment of proper decisionmaking with proper public input.

I disagree with this comparison. This is like having to temporarily put some public transit services on hold in favour of acceleration and improving another transit project (hey guess what, that's what we already do with things like Weekend Line 1 shutdowns to install ATC and work on the Eglinton Crosstown)

If you listened to the injunction hearing yesterday (I did, for a lot of it) - Metrolinx’ lawyer made it clear that they had made the decision a long time ago and the more recent public dialog was only undertaken because they had some slack time in their schedule and they figured the Parsons study would not hold them up. As it happened, Parsons itself did not deliver to its original timeline, so by the time the study was available the forestry crew was already on the clock. And since they felt they had the legal right to act unilaterally all along, they were not halting the train. They handed over the Parsons report as a “nail in the coffin” rather than as food for thought.



We don’t. But engineering is supposed to serve the public good, and not the reverse. Engineers take direction from the public and apply their skills to a design, they don’t tell the public what to build. (although they are respected for their knowledge and aadvice)

The public good is and always should be the end product. Will the road be bumpy to get x built? Yes, but the ends should justify the means. Once we enter the rabbithole of "the public should be minimally disturbed during construction", the road ends with travesties like BART SV Phase 2 and the SSE where we're building massively overbuilt subways with large TBMs under stroads and suburbs because god forbid we rip out the road to build a shallow and (in the long term) convenient cut and cover tunnel. Please won't someone think of the businesses? And then people wonder why construction costs in NA are so much higher than in Europe/Asia (I'm not saying this is the only reason, I'm saying it's a contributing factor).

I’m sure that any number of engineering firms would be happy to take another look. Ml loves “international design competitions”…. maybe this is the place for one. If one looks to the UK, the Elizabeth line was not built without some public sacrifices, but it was routed around equally challenging constraints in an urban space where there are many treasures that are not to be destroyed..

What are we comparing here? Historic Downtown London Structures with a couple of aged trees? I agree, when the structural stability of Big Ben is at stake (mostly referring to the Jubilee/Victoria Line construction here), forcing hard constraints makes sense and something we should do, but a couple of trees?

 

[ARG1]

I'm sorry, but this is in bad faith. Metrolinx has made the facts of this whole situation completely unclear. I'm reading everything I can and I have no idea what is possible and what the cost benefit analysis is. This should obviously have been public information months ago.

Sure, I agree they could've done a better job at consultation. But at the same time in my experience, all consultation ends up doing is pointlessly extend construction timelines and increase costs. Our transit system is decades behind where it should be, we literally aren't in a position where we can sit around and sing Kumbaya, and I would gladly give engineers the authority to push through projects the way they see make sense if it means getting more done for less.

The trees at Osgoode hall are more important than elsewhere. There are like 4 mature trees downtown.

They will also be replanted and regrown afterwards. It's a temporary setback.

Obviously I'm being hyperbolic, but, yes, every adult tree in this location is actually important . If there was a reasonable level of transparency I could be easily convinced of the need to remove the trees. The Ontario Line is clearly the most important element of the discussion, but no case has been made to explain why it is necessary to cut down those trees and place a building there when it appears that an alternative is possible.

Again, I'm pretty sure the area will survive if it doesn't have mature trees for ~10 years whilst construction occurs. This is in favour of a transit line that will serve the city for >100 years.

There is the independent report which I found out about today. If I, who keeps up on these things, found out about the report the day they start demolition, then it's safe to say the public has not been given sufficient information on the project. Also, as a layman the report isn't immediately clear as to why this option is the best. I'll be looking into it in more detail, but Metrolinx could easily give two sentences to the media to explain their decision.

People who think there is a natural and better alternative are not NIMBY's. They just think there is a better plan available. Thats a fair opinion given what little information we have.

A better alternative for the sake of cutting down 5 replaceable trees. Yes, I am arguing in bad faith, but because this whole scenario to me just screams "ridiculous". It's really difficult to talk about this in good faith when everything is being done for the sake of trees that can be replanted and start anew. Again, it's not like we're demolishing Queens Park or the CN Tower for this, it's a bunch of trees that won't take much to replant once construction is over.

It's also important to note that this is also a PR disaster for rapid transit expansion. Major changes to the public realm are always going to cause a stir, and this couldn't have been handled more poorly. This is going to throw unnecessary wrenches into future extension plans. All they have to do is explain things.

What has also significantly damaged PR for RT expansion is rising costs that are in part due to decades of added bureaucratic red tape and needing to bend over every single local demand about every project. This entire situation is the boiling point of that.

 

[NoahB]

Here's two official sources from the LSO itself...other than a 100 year old ash tree (which is likely at risk from EAB), they are all likely planted post WW2

https://lawsocietyontario.azureedge.net/media/lso/media/legacy/pdf/a/au/audio-tour-grounds-transcript-english.pdf

"The trees are the dominant feature of the grounds and have been the greatest source of garden
expenses for the Law Society. Contrary to popular belief, few if any of the trees go back further than
World War Two, and there has been a lot of turnover over the years. Life is hard for city trees.

Many of our trees, including the lindens, honey locusts, and flowering crab apples, date from 1965, and as time
goes on, the tree cover will continue to change. Our current replacement policy favours native species
such as the red oak, the Eastern white pine, the American beech and the hop-hornbeam."
"

Osgoode Hall

osgoode-hall.stqry.app

"The Trees
Trees are the dominant feature of the Osgoode Hall grounds. They have been the greatest source of gardening expenses for the Law Society. None of the trees are from the original landscaping plan, but the grounds have a mature tree canopy with at least one tree over 100 years old, one of the largest remaining Ash trees in the city, on the south-west corner of the property."

Good catch


I find it hilarious that the court documents show that the trees on site were planted a decade after discussions on the Queen Subway started. (granddaddy plan of the OL)
These are not 200yo magical trees. They are not more special than the trees planted after the Yonge Subway cut and the cover was done. The Law Society itself says most of the trees are only as old as the Bloor Line 2. No tree has ever been planted ever again since then.

I personally feel more vindicated as this develops.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Ward8]

Ward8 with the Bailey: Actually it is about the trees and these trees in specific!!!

And you with the Strawman.

It's about public space, and public assets. In this case trees, parkland, and a transit line. Maximizing the best use of all of these to create the optimum urban context on a major project. Why subtract precious parkland if you don't have to? No one at Metrolinx has explained why. Or why our station buildings have to be bigger than other ones around the world. If it's the only way, they should explain it in terms that normal people can understand. Otherwise, put the station entrance on University Ave and maintain Maximum parkland. Thats called a win/win. This comes across to many, rightly or wrongly, as a way of preserving vehicle lanes on University at the expense of the park.

This is a quote from Metrolinx today. "If we were to go with Campbell house, which we can't for a variety of reasons, these same trees would come down"

Like... What are the reasons? That's the Metrolinx version of "I have a girlfriend, but she goes to another school." It's so opaque and it's their own fault this is happening.

No one will explain why it's necessary to accept a suboptimal solution, other than "this is a delay and public parks aren't actually that important." If it's prohibitively expensive, fine, if it's impossible from an engineering perspective also fine. The public is entitled to an explanation. Also, is it necessary to cut the trees down and put the building in the park? Or is it just necessary to cut the trees and we can put the building on University? The entrance is optimized for access to the streetcar stop.. isn't it a possibility that the Queen car is eventually prioritized and the stops get moved to the far side? How do they intend on future proofing for this?

Again, I'm pretty sure the area will survive if it doesn't have mature trees for ~10 years whilst construction occurs. This is in favour of a transit line that will serve the city for >100 years.

They're permanently removing parkland. A worthy sacrifice, yes, but again, better if it can be avoided. It's infinitely better city building to have the station entrance outside of the park, especially if one could animate the sides of the building with food stalls and news stands. Having two blank walls face a park is suboptimal park design and urbanism.

Sure, I agree they could've done a better job at consultation. But at the same time in my experience, all consultation ends up doing is pointlessly extend construction timelines and increase costs. Our transit system is decades behind where it should be, we literally aren't in a position where we can sit around and sing Kumbaya, and I would gladly give engineers the authority to push through projects the way they see make sense if it means getting more done for less.

This is a whole can of worms. The consultation process is most definitely broken, but engineers are notorious for horrible projects. Going back to the days of Robert Moses is just as bad as what we have now. Traffic engineers could be the worst thing to ever happen to cities. No one disagrees we need transit fast, the disagreement is over the location of one station entrance.