[ProjectEnd]

I know many on this forum do not like this proposal, but I have to admit it could do wonders in stitching the city together. There is no way the city can pay to build a rail deck park so I do not mind this solution if it at least gets some of that objective done. Devil will be in the details as always.

So who, in your mind, is paying for this version?

 

[Northern Light]

I know many on this forum do not like this proposal, but I have to admit it could do wonders in stitching the city together. There is no way the city can pay to build a rail deck park so I do not mind this solution if it at least gets some of that objective done. Devil will be in the details as always.

Its not simply a matter of 'not liking'.

Its a fundamentally bad proposal which produces no tangible civic gain.

Its dependent on subsidies from the City of Toronto to create the imaginary park envisioned here, its also dependent on the City giving/selling a portion of the Front Street ROW to the proponent as well.

Its a unique combination of unambitious, non-City Building, dependent on public largess and therefore, it would appear, and one would likewise hope, constitutes a mediocre work of fiction.

 

[generalcanada]

Its not simply a matter of 'not liking'.

Its a fundamentally bad proposal which produces no tangible civic gain.

Its dependent on subsidies from the City of Toronto to create the imaginary park envisioned here, its also dependent on the City giving/selling a portion of the Front Street ROW to the proponent as well.

Its a unique combination of unambitious, non-City Building, dependent on public largess and therefore, it would appear, and one would likewise hope, constitutes a mediocre work of fiction.

Im going to throw my 0.02 here.
"perfection should not be the enemy of progress"

Sure having the entire park built instantly would be great, but thats not realistic. A small park is good enough.
Knowing the city, they wont ever shell out the money for the park, but hypothetically we can get some concessions from the developer like half-finished decking over the tracks making it easier to complete in the future for cheaper.

The goal here shouldnt be a straight no. It should be "meet us halfway"

The Front St. ROW thing is the lynchpin so opposing that would kill this project entirely.

Really curious how the developer sells this project as the cost of sale for these condo units could be crazy expensive.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Im going to throw my 0.02 here.
"perfection should not be the enemy of progress"

Sure having the entire park built instantly would be great, but thats not realistic. A small park is good enough.
Knowing the city, they wont ever shell out the money for the park, but hypothetically we can get some concessions from the developer like half-finished decking over the tracks making it easier to complete in the future for cheaper.

The goal here shouldnt be a straight no. It should be "meet us halfway"

The Front St. ROW thing is the lynchpin so opposing that would kill this project entirely.

Really curious how the developer sells this project as the cost of sale for these condo units could be crazy expensive.

THIS. PROJECT. IS. NOT. A. THING. STOP. TALKING. ABOUT. IT. AS. IF. IT. IS.

 

[Northern Light]

Im going to throw my 0.02 here.
"perfection should not be the enemy of progress"

No it should not.

However, I will argue that what is proposed here is not progress.

Sure having the entire park built instantly would be great, but thats not realistic.

I don't particularly desire the park here at all, for reasons I've outlined many times, a park on a deck is a bad park, its also a hideously expensive park and there are far better and cheaper ways to add parkland near the core.

A small park is good enough.

I would argue it is not.

Aside from being a poor quality of park because its on a deck, it simply won't meet any key programming demands for a park downtown.

Unmet needs (wait lists) exist for:

1) Soccer fields (won't fit here)

2) Cricket Pitches (full size won't fit here)

3) Tennis Courts - could fit in a larger park, but would consume a small one entirely.

4) An additional outdoor pool (which would be a signature sized facility), won't fit here, probably wouldn't be built anyway, if it could due to risks associated w/that, given the structure and what would be underneath.

5) There is a deficit of higher quality nature close to the core; but this is not a good spot to build on that, as even the maximum size version of a park here is too small for ecological critical mass, too isolated, and in any event a deck means you'll have to destroy it all every 30-40 years to work on the deck membranes.

I just don't see any value in another small park here, particularly at the price tag we're talking about.

Knowing the city, they wont ever shell out the money for the park, but hypothetically we can get some concessions from the developer like half-finished decking over the tracks making it easier to complete in the future for cheaper.

This isn't happening. @ProjectEnd has repeatedly outlined that the numbers just don't work here without de-risking (public subsidy)

The goal here shouldnt be a straight no. It should be "meet us halfway"

Why?

I would argue the City's goal is to spend its money wisely and to plan for responsible growth that achieves the best outcome possible.

Here, the only way you get any outcome at all is with public subsidy and the gains are more than offset by the losses, before that subsidy is even factored in...

The Front St. ROW thing is the lynchpin so opposing that would kill this project entirely.

Which is why I oppose giving any of Front Street up here. The developers involved deserve to take a financial bath in red ink for what was nothing short of attempted theft from the public. They need not be rewarded in any way.

Really curious how the developer sells this project as the cost of sale for these condo units could be crazy expensive.

Right, they can't. That's the point. This only works for them if government in some way bails them out. That's reverse-Robin Hood, take money from the masses to give to the already rich, so they build crap we don't need or want. Hard pass.

***

Edit to add: Ya beat me to it by a couple seconds PE

 

[Civdis]

So who, in your mind, is paying for this version?

The developer, and ultimately, the purchasers in this development.

 

[Civdis]

Its not simply a matter of 'not liking'.

Its a fundamentally bad proposal which produces no tangible civic gain.

Its dependent on subsidies from the City of Toronto to create the imaginary park envisioned here, its also dependent on the City giving/selling a portion of the Front Street ROW to the proponent as well.

Its a unique combination of unambitious, non-City Building, dependent on public largess and therefore, it would appear, and one would likewise hope, constitutes a mediocre work of fiction.

And the alternative? An ugly rail corridor that continues as a scar on our city. I am not saying the proposal can't use improvement, but I would rather get on with something because there is no way the city can afford to build a park here on their own.

 

[Civdis]

Im going to throw my 0.02 here.
"perfection should not be the enemy of progress"

Sure having the entire park built instantly would be great, but thats not realistic. A small park is good enough.
Knowing the city, they wont ever shell out the money for the park, but hypothetically we can get some concessions from the developer like half-finished decking over the tracks making it easier to complete in the future for cheaper.

The goal here shouldnt be a straight no. It should be "meet us halfway"

The Front St. ROW thing is the lynchpin so opposing that would kill this project entirely.

Really curious how the developer sells this project as the cost of sale for these condo units could be crazy expensive.

Bang on!

 

[Civdis]

THIS. PROJECT. IS. NOT. A. THING. STOP. TALKING. ABOUT. IT. AS. IF. IT. IS.

One can hope LOL!

 

[Northern Light]

And the alternative?

Wait for a time and place when something better can be delivered. A park is not the logical priority here, if and when something happens here, some considerable time into the future, lets shift the parkland contribution to other nearby sites where something better can be achieved.

An ugly rail corridor that continues as a scar on our city.

I can't say I view the rail corridor as the blight that you do.

Don't get me wrong, there are certainly opportunities to do better here, especially at the edges (Spadina, Bathurst, and Front)

But I don't think either side of the rail corridor in the Spadina-Bathurst segment is suffering all that terrible..........."The Well" is not suggestive of land sterilized by some irredeemable scar.

I don't see the need to replace said corridor (at the surface level) with something unredeeming, simply because its not what's there now.

but I would rather get on with something because there is no way the city can afford to build a park here on their own.

Again, a park here is not desirable. At all.

This is said by someone is advocates for more parkland and better managed parkland..........regularly.

This project is not the solution, just a way to make things worse.

 

[rdaner]

All that it would take for the viability of this to increase dramatically is the addition of a casino as is being done by Oxford Developments for Hudson Yards 2.0. And by casino I mean the whole package with theatres, shops, hotel, etc. Wynn is one of five Las Vegas firms doing deals in NY and it will only be a matter of time before they try here.

 

[Northern Light]

All that it would take for the viability of this to increase dramatically is the addition of a casino as is being done by Oxford Developments for Hudson Yards 2.0. And by casino I mean the whole package with theatres, shops, hotel, etc. Wynn is one of five Las Vegas firms doing deals in NY and it will only be a matter of time before they try here.

Casinos are a dime a dozen now, they're everywhere.

IF Toronto made a serious play, we would kill any money-making potential at Rama and Niagara.

There is no great windfall to be made.

Also the City continues to have an anti-casino policy.

 

[rdaner]

Casinos are a dime a dozen now, they're everywhere.

IF Toronto made a serious play, we would kill any money-making potential at Rama and Niagara.

There is no great windfall to be made.

Also the City continues to have an anti-casino policy.

I am against casinos personally but think that they will be like heroin for Queen’s Park. An attempt is likely especially if serious global money backs it.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

5) There is a deficit of higher quality nature close to the core; but this is not a good spot to build on that, as even the maximum size version of a park here is too small for ecological critical mass, too isolated, and in any event a deck means you'll have to destroy it all every 30-40 years to work on the deck membranes.

And this for me is the best reason not to have a rail deck park. At all. ...and thank you for that, Light-san! /bows

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's not a park, it's a poop deck (as I started calling it years ago, though it didn't catch on...). 4000 little dogs will live in those sad little apartments in Kowloon slabs facing into each other's windows and they'll need somewhere to walk and play. They will play and poop and piddle in little planters in concrete with potted plants that will die in a couple of years. Let's not pretend a lot of people are going to raise kid anywhere like this. It looks like sad waiting to happen. We thought Winnipeg was the World Capital of Sorrow; this will help Toronto steal that title along with the Grey Cup.