[ShonTron]

I would call it Bathurst-Spadina Raildeck development - since this is less about the park space itself.

AoD

Works for me!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Works for me!

And done.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Another riddle:

If the City does a thorough title search, and realizes that they have an almost absolute claim on the Esplanade Corridor...and that many previous transactions have ignored that reality...would they recoil in horror and silence and keep it to themselves? The implications would be astounding, if not possibly poisonous to further development along the USRC. (For better or worse)

Reading back in this string, I see Alvin has already posted the Globe's last article link on it, as well as the Star's, where Pagliaro produces some fascinating quotes.

This is the most interesting one to me:

In a letter to executive committee this week, George Huggins, director of operations for TTR, identified the company and CN as “owners of most of the air rights and property strata above the (Union Station rail corridor).” He also criticized the city for moving toward rezoning the area, calling it “premature and inappropriate.”

But in a later email to Tory’s chief of staff, which was forwarded to the Star, Huggins clarified that “TTR has a history of collaborating with the City of Toronto in moving important public infrastructure projects forward, and we will continue to co-operate on any and all projects. We regret any misunderstanding.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...ir-that-rail-deck-park-would-be-built-on.html

"We regret any misunderstanding.". That comment resonated with me then, it still does. No comment beyond my hearing eggshells cracking...

Edit to Clarify:

many previous transactions have ignored that reality

In all fairness, although John Sewell claims otherwise, the City may not have been aware of the limitations of the 'concessions' granted the railways along the Esplanade. As to why not is a very good question, Sewell certainly attempted to make them so. He titled a chapter "The Railway Swindle" in one of his books.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=T8s8Xwza6j8C&pg=PA96&lpg=PA96&dq=john+sewell+railway+swindle&source=bl&ots=s2JpSI0YRR&sig=vJxMoxDqHKmK6PMzOmZKGSQ1BTo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjt45C1uYvUAhWGxYMKHRtoBDwQ6AEILzAB#v=onepage&q=john sewell railway swindle&f=false

One could understand the City and Province (who hold the records, it's their jurisdiction) not knowing if Joe Blow got a variance for his pig slaughter operation at the foot of Peter Street in 1897, but for the City, putting a subway right next to Union Station, and many other *major* projects in the lower core not knowing something so profound as ownership of the USRC and Esplanade defies rational belief. Not only are the underpasses and RoW their property, there's a major sewer running through area mentioned in the Statutes, and how the railways using the RoW had to contribute to upkeep and pay per annum on the 'concession' as well as infrastructure costs.

This 'absence of records' is so irrational that it lends itself to conspiratorial silence scenarios...

Here's an excerpt from Sewell's "Up Against City Hall". Note the reference to the SCC:

Pg 99, link above.
(Note: Published 1972, figures stated circa that time)

It's easy to dismiss Sewell as being "far left"...but his linking and reference can't be ignored. A fair number of Toronto Cnclrs are also 'on the left'. Perhaps it's time for them to have coffee with John?

 

[Irishmonk]

They paved paradeck and put up a parking lot.

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

Why would they enter into a contract with a small-time developer, especially when the question of air rights is an open one, and potential zoning a huge question mark? It makes me wonder what was actually sold, and if they took advantage of an inexperienced developer in order to hedge some risk over an uncertain future court ruling regarding ownership.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I had written a snarkogram noting that an orca is a giant beast that bites something in half and kills it. I somehow failed to post it.

But after looking through the planning document, I think there are possibilities, and that it might be better to build something along those lines than to think you're building central park and then find out it's really a green roof with some planters anyway. Or to fail to find the billion dollars to start with, because the mayor bought too many magic trainstalk beans.

After all, killer whales are pretty and smart, even if they kill things.

 

[avatarreb]

Seems like a lot of the renders incorporate the existing Linear Park to make the remaining park seem bigger than it is. This really wouldn't be a city park in anything but name, but just additional green space. Likely used by the local residents vs a substantial city amenity. I'm pro density... but this would be a missed opportunity for Toronto.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

What I am saying is that I'd rather a park not pretending to be natural when it isn't.

AoD

Agreed. We have enough of those in Toronto as it is. Maybe not right in downtown, but throughout the city.

This is the place for something more akin to Berczy Park, for example. People-oriented urban space with greenery and trees and places for sitting.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Why would they enter into a contract with a small-time developer, especially when the question of air rights is an open one, and potential zoning a huge question mark? It makes me wonder what was actually sold, and if they took advantage of an inexperienced developer in order to hedge some risk over an uncertain future court ruling regarding ownership.

Who cares about their experience? If they fronted the money, why not sell it?

Seems like a lot of the renders incorporate the existing Linear Park to make the remaining park seem bigger than it is. This really wouldn't be a city park in anything but name, but just additional green space. Likely used by the local residents vs a substantial city amenity. I'm pro density... but this would be a missed opportunity for Toronto.

Wouldn't access be part of a s. 37 agreement? Seems to me that incorporating Rail Deck Park is an olive branch, an offer to allow development of their towers. If they had come along and proposed a greater proportion of that airspace to be developed, you could bet on the city fighting it tooth and nail. Offering half the space to incorporate part of the original vision of a park, with no capital cost to the city, is going to be a tempting offer.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Who cares about their experience? If they fronted the money, why not sell it?

Wouldn't access be part of a s. 37 agreement? Seems to me that incorporating Rail Deck Park is an olive branch, an offer to allow development of their towers. If they had come along and proposed a greater proportion of that airspace to be developed, you could bet on the city fighting it tooth and nail. Offering half the space to incorporate part of the original vision of a park, with no capital cost to the city, is going to be a tempting offer.

Experience and by extension reliability matters - unless you want a mistake with implications on the future of the rail corridor and the park space. Though if they never had the air rights it would make the case moot; also, there is the jurisdictional aspect to the case to consider as well. It may not be for them to sell; nor for said end purposes.

AoD

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Experience and by extension reliability matters - unless you want a mistake with implications on the future of the rail corridor and the park space.

Well wouldn;t that be the city's responsibility that that mistake doesn't happen? Shouldn't planning and consulting appropriately on the proposal be the responsibility of the developer? The city would be well footed in opposing the project if there was some grave implication.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Well wouldn;t that be the city's responsibility that that mistake doesn't happen? Shouldn't planning and consulting appropriately on the proposal be the responsibility of the developer? The city would be well footed in opposing the project if there was some grave implication.

Partly - but what about a developer biting off more than it can chew and had to delay, scale back, fail to deliver, or in the worst case, go under? It's not like we haven't seen large projects by green developers promising the sky and ended up barely able to deliver after years of delay (Penequity - Metropolis/10 Dundas anyone)?

AoD

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Partly - but what about a developer biting off more than it can chew and had to delay, scale back, fail to deliver, or in the worst case, go under? It's not like we haven't seen large projects by green developers promising the sky and ended up barely able to deliver after years of delay (Penequity - Metropolis/10 Dundas anyone)?

AoD

Not arguing with the possibility of failure. Just that the city isn't responsible for helping them. The city's role is setting the bar. If you can't meet the bar, tough.

That should be reflective on whether or not someone gives financial backing to a developer. If these guys aren't up to the task and someone gave them backing, then they're stupid and shouldn't be in this realm of the business of financial management.

If developers are getting away and completing projects to a lower standard, then that probably speaks to the city's willingness to lower the bar, and/or the teeth they have to enforce the bar.

 

[G.L.17]

The City will be hosting an OPA public consultation on June 13th for RDP; not the proposal:

What: Rail Corridor - Official Plan Amendment public consultation

When: Tuesday June 13th, 6-9pm

Where: Metro Hall Rotunda

 

[Edward Skira]

What will the future bring?