[steveintoronto]

Well this shall be interesting. I think we still have an open debate at the Rail Deck Park thread about whether or not you can stratify and then buy/sell air rights here. I have yet to go through a number of potentially relevant SCC cases posted by @steveintoronto and add my thoughts. That issue alone would potentially be a matter to go to the courts in this case. But if we are to assume that they do have those rights and they can submit the OPA, this still gets very juicy.

But I'll propose hypothetical stuff, including rights, potential court cases and lawsuits goes in the Rail Deck Park thread, and we save this one for the specifics of the proposed development. Thoughts?

Thanks for the heads-up on this, DVR.

Craft chief executive officer Peter Griffis said he plans to have a development application “formalized and ready to go” for the site by the end of November, despite the city’s intention to rezone the entire area for a park. He warned the battle would end up at the Ontario Municipal Board.

"OMB"? LOL! You be kidding me man! Try Ontario Superior Court. The SCC have already ruled on this a number of times. The OMB is a mere clearing house for planning disputes.

I just hope City Hall have retained the best legal minds on this, and QP and the Federal Transport Ministry. I'm unfamiliar with the latest on this, have to read back here to get a better grasp.

I had to leave the Rail Deck Park forum to lay fallow for a while, I'm still boggled as to what's on the books. It still appears, in the absence of any Court rulings or legislation to over-rule/ride the legal precedent set, that as it stands (literally) there's some ownership disputes already headed to court. The only buffer to the City's clear claim on the land, let alone the air-rights, is being legally subsidiary to the Province, and the Feds having to include the Province as proxy for the City. The legal rulings were all for the "City of Toronto".

Frankly I think City Hall is manic on the park, but not so on ownership of the land and air. (the latter the Feds might have a claim to in some respects)

Very interesting indeed...

 

[Automation Gallery]

Im hoping that all buildings be built on the south side of Front street from Spadina to Bathurst leaving the rest for the so called park

But most likely they will also plan a cluster of bldgs overtop @ Bathurst and Spadina to make it financially feasible

 

[maestro]

It makes less sense that they would put buildings overtop the rail lines such as facing Bathurst or Spadina

 

[interchange42]

The supporting documents are now online, and we have a new dataBase file with 14 renderings linked at the top of this page, and a front page story, here.

And yes, we have a bit of a wait ahead to find out what the name ORCA refers to.

42

 

[Edward Skira]

From the story.

 

[someMidTowner]

The supporting documents are now online, and we have a new dataBase file with 14 renderings linked at the top of this page, and a front page story, here.

And yes, we have a bit of a wait ahead to find out what the name ORCA refers to.

42

Let's take guesses!

I'm going with Over Rail Corridor Assembly

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

Well then - that's certainly something


Traffic in Cityplace is gonna be a nightmare

 

[jje1000]

I think they should consolidate the 8 buildings to a fewer number of taller buildings (maybe 3-4?)- basically Wellesley on the Park or Hudson Yards.

Definitely think this should be the case after seeing the images. The north side is too cut off by a wall of towers.

Ironically though, the south side is also cut off through a grade change (the entire park seems set a few storeys up to satisfy the need for parking and the mall) as well as the weird road tunnels- not a fan as it will make the park less accessible and the space less urban.

If anything, development should be more pavilionesque in the form of free standing developments with the park as close to streetlevel as possible- that allows the city and park to flow into each other rather than into walls- atm it feels like they're just replaced a pit with a berm.

Good news though to see a GO station integrated into the design.

Overall opinion- send it back for a total redesign.

 

[Edward Skira]

(the entire park seems set a few storeys up to satisfy the need for parking and the mall

I think it's raised to allow for the rail needs below.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

The park seems a lot more accessible than the one proposed as part of Bay Park Centre

 

[jje1000]

I think it's raised to allow for the rail needs below.

In some of the images you see garage doors and roadways leading to them.

I doubt the railway needs 2-4 extra floors of airspace.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

I don't think the developer would need the OMB here. If they own air rights this would probably end up in the courts. I wonder if the developer is just looking for a buy-out from the city/province.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I'm not sure how to feel about this. Obviously it is early on in the process. On one hand I want the full Rail Deck Park built, but I question if the city could pull off a project that big or would screw it up. Private money and some condos could mean that Rail Deck Park actually gets built, but we will have less space. If this "condos + park" could be used as a formula to deck the entire corridor over down the road to both east and west, that could be great. But I don't know, I gotta think this one over.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The park seems a lot more accessible than the one proposed as part of Bay Park Centre

The fact that the railway corridor is in a ditch instead of being on a berm helps.

As to the project itself - broadly along expected lines, and early days yet - but the massing looks a little clumsy, and the elevated structure of the deck and the abrupt grade change at the south end downright rude.

I would love to see the city use some of the parkland levy to buy out part of the project to increase the amount of park space. As it stands right now, the parkland feels like a going through the motion afterthought (i.e. what to do with cover for the parking garage), not the defining element of the development or the site.

From the Architectural Plans

Level 1

Level 2

South Elevation

Section (Bathurst End)

Section (Flyover)

Section (Spadina/Office)

The parking space should be moved to the podium, for one.

AoD

 

[ponyboy]

If they're going to raise the park up two levels above the rail corridor for parking, then shouldn't there be a north-south road incorporated under the park since road connectivity is so bad in the area. I can't tell if that is what they envision for Dan Leckie.

Since it is well above street level, I think there should be easily accessible escalators and elevators to the park level.

However, I think it is best to not elevate the park any higher than necessary above the corridor.

To integrate with the Well, pedestrian bridges across Front would make sense, but competition between the different owners of the retail might make that difficult (like Atrium on Bay and Eaton Centre).