UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Thanks for clarifying that then.
...with that and to answer your question more appropriately then, because they might be forced too?
- Thread starter Automation Gallery
- Start date
...with that and to answer your question more appropriately then, because they might be forced too?
3Dementia
Senior Member
Obviously haven't explored the concept in detail but just looking at the first (aerial) massing images raises some questions and thoughts vis a vis reclaiming a larger park footprint.
1. Why do 2 of the towers step forward (south) to further intrude on the already compromised park?
2. The galleria is a good idea but if it's just a weather-protected pedestrian (bike?) path, why is it so wide? Or are they envisioning wall to wall small retail? Maybe more of it could be incorporated into the tower footprints.
3. As others have mentioned, fewer taller towers (with thinner north/south design) would obviously help.
Ain't rocket science to say that as massing moves to design, the buildings should employ a variety of architectural firms... hopefully Safdie's role will be concept planning (perhaps one tower design).
1. Why do 2 of the towers step forward (south) to further intrude on the already compromised park?
2. The galleria is a good idea but if it's just a weather-protected pedestrian (bike?) path, why is it so wide? Or are they envisioning wall to wall small retail? Maybe more of it could be incorporated into the tower footprints.
3. As others have mentioned, fewer taller towers (with thinner north/south design) would obviously help.
Ain't rocket science to say that as massing moves to design, the buildings should employ a variety of architectural firms... hopefully Safdie's role will be concept planning (perhaps one tower design).
UrbanAffair
Senior Member
I found this article from the LPATwhich denied a review of the Deck Park decision - source is Novae Res Urbis. But, I am a little confused, I thought the city's plan was for a park in whole, rather than park plus buildings. Did that change at some point? Can someone advise as to what I'm missing?
REQUEST TO REVIEW RAIL DECK PARK OPA DECISION DENIED
The LPAT has dismissed a request for a review of a July 11, 2019 decision which approved the City of Toronto’s Official Plan Amendment 395 (OPA 395) to establish a policy framework for the creation of a decking structure over the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC), known commonly as the proposed Rail Deck Park.
OPA 395 was appealed by CRAFT Acquisitions Corporation and P.I.T.S. Development Inc. (together CRAFT) as well as Canadian National Railway Company and Toronto Terminals Railway Company Ltd.
The request for a review of the decision was brought by Kagan Shastri LLP on behalf of CRAFT, the proponent of a private official plan amendment application to permit a multi-tower development and a new park above a portion of the USRC. CRAFT’s site—for which it has acquired a strata property interest—corresponds substantially with the extent of the OPA 395 area.
In its request, CRAFT asserted that during the earlier hearing, the Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from counsel for the City with respect to the impact of OPA 395 on the value of the subject lands, which could have led to a different outcome of the appeal.
CRAFT indicated that the City’s counsel had previously taken the position that OPA 395’s re-designation of the lands from “Utility Corridor Areas” to “Parks and Open Space” could not validly be used to reduce the value of the lands.
It went on to say that the City has now taken a contradictory position, through its efforts to date to expropriate the air space above the USRC to proceed with Rail Deck Park, citing a January 17, 2020 letter from the City’s counsel to CRAFT stating that “OPA 395 may have an impact on value should the Tribunal refuse to approve all or part of [CRAFT’s] private OPA for Mixed Use Development in [the] fall hearing.”
In her response to CRAFT’s request, LPAT Associate Chair Marie Hubbard wrote that the request for review failed to establish a convincing and compelling case, and that the City’s more-recent position on the valuation of the lands would not have affected the outcome of the appeals of OPA 395, which the Tribunal found to meet the applicable statutory tests.
Hubbard dismissed the appeal and declared that the decision to approve OPA 395 remains in force and effect.
REQUEST TO REVIEW RAIL DECK PARK OPA DECISION DENIED
The LPAT has dismissed a request for a review of a July 11, 2019 decision which approved the City of Toronto’s Official Plan Amendment 395 (OPA 395) to establish a policy framework for the creation of a decking structure over the Union Station Rail Corridor (USRC), known commonly as the proposed Rail Deck Park.
OPA 395 was appealed by CRAFT Acquisitions Corporation and P.I.T.S. Development Inc. (together CRAFT) as well as Canadian National Railway Company and Toronto Terminals Railway Company Ltd.
The request for a review of the decision was brought by Kagan Shastri LLP on behalf of CRAFT, the proponent of a private official plan amendment application to permit a multi-tower development and a new park above a portion of the USRC. CRAFT’s site—for which it has acquired a strata property interest—corresponds substantially with the extent of the OPA 395 area.
In its request, CRAFT asserted that during the earlier hearing, the Tribunal heard false or misleading evidence from counsel for the City with respect to the impact of OPA 395 on the value of the subject lands, which could have led to a different outcome of the appeal.
CRAFT indicated that the City’s counsel had previously taken the position that OPA 395’s re-designation of the lands from “Utility Corridor Areas” to “Parks and Open Space” could not validly be used to reduce the value of the lands.
It went on to say that the City has now taken a contradictory position, through its efforts to date to expropriate the air space above the USRC to proceed with Rail Deck Park, citing a January 17, 2020 letter from the City’s counsel to CRAFT stating that “OPA 395 may have an impact on value should the Tribunal refuse to approve all or part of [CRAFT’s] private OPA for Mixed Use Development in [the] fall hearing.”
In her response to CRAFT’s request, LPAT Associate Chair Marie Hubbard wrote that the request for review failed to establish a convincing and compelling case, and that the City’s more-recent position on the valuation of the lands would not have affected the outcome of the appeals of OPA 395, which the Tribunal found to meet the applicable statutory tests.
Hubbard dismissed the appeal and declared that the decision to approve OPA 395 remains in force and effect.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I suspect this "proposal" is more about increasing the supposed worth of the land going into negotiations. The public campaign abetted by CTF and other figures is the other side of the vise.
And yeah, if anyone is going to think that some unknown entity is going to Safdie this to Marina Bay Sands to look at Cityplace, that's a 6B ($US - 2010) figure one should chew on.
AoD
Last edited:
3Dementia
Senior Member
As an aside, I think Marina Bay Sands gets way too much love... the ridiculous cruise ship stranded on top of the towers. Guess one of the few positives of the climate/flooding disaster in the works, is the ship may be floated again and passengers retrieved. ?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
The hanging garden is impressive - but architecturally the project is otherwise wanting.
AoD
p5connex
Active Member
Wanting...to be pushed out to sea, where it can sink to the shadowy depths of the Davy Jones closet.
Moshe Safdie stars, directs and produces "Pirates of the South China Sea - Part III - The Curse of the Toronto ORCA"
Moshe Safdie stars, directs and produces "Pirates of the South China Sea - Part III - The Curse of the Toronto ORCA"
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Architecturally, this is far closer to Sky Habitat than MBS:
Lenser
Senior Member
That's actually pretty cool.
karledice
Senior Member
A larger than Mirvish-Gehry or Union Park scale of construction of 10 towers over a rail deck from a developer that has not built even a single condo ever and incorporated solely for this project. Also on the land designated to be parkland and failed the appeal to remove the designation.
Sounds legit ???
hehe we all know they're trying to get the best ROI on their so called "air rights" and get the city to choke more money.
This will hopefully go away soon enough.
Sounds legit ???
hehe we all know they're trying to get the best ROI on their so called "air rights" and get the city to choke more money.
This will hopefully go away soon enough.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Even if they don't have any intention to build, it's still well within their rights to try and pursue entitlements. It's a gamble, sure, but that's their business.
jaborandi
Active Member
Yikes! Shades of Harbour Castle...
cogito ergo
Active Member
Hmmm .. functionally useless you say?.. narrow ribbon you say? ....got it!! now.... have you ever seen High Line Park?? just wondering...
Last edited by a moderator:
Koops65
Senior Member
Haydenpoon
Active Member
The proposal would only allow for 10 train tracks under Bathurst, but there will eventually be 12 tracks (4 from Lakeshore, 8 from Milton, Kitchener and Barrie) west of Strachan Ave. To me, it seems like the Barrie Line would have to be single-tracked through Bathurst Street. What if Metrolinx needs to reorganize all the train tracks approaching Union Station, with new underpasses and overpasses? This development should not be approved until GO Expansion(GO RER previously) is completed.