interchange42 said:
The idea is that the trusses to span the tracks will be high enough that between their lower extent (which has to clear the future electrical service over the tracks) and their upper extent (on which the deck can rest), there will be enough space to create a servicing and parking level. The space will be there anyway, and the buildings will have to be serviced, and as others have pointed out, zero parking for 2,500 units is not really possible yet, so… use that space between the trusses for parking.

42
Click to expand...
I don't understand why these trusses need to be any higher than the Spadina bridge road surface. If that can hold parked cars at rush hour and two streetcars, it should be able to support a park surface. The trusses to support the buildings can go as high as necessary but should not need to extend past the building's southern supports.
 
Today I learned that ORCA stands for "Over Rail Corridor Area" - which I will be honest is not as catchy a name-tag as "Rail Deck Park".
 
HousingNowTO said:
Today I learned that ORCA stands for "Over Rail Corridor Area" - which I will be honest is not as catchy a name-tag as "Rail Deck Park".
Click to expand...
To be fair, RDP sounds more orc'ward, if folks want to whale on about it... >.>
 
Last edited:
All I think of every time I hear ORCA...

1621122063236.png
 
AlexBozikovic said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1394434905313005572
Click to expand...

Direct link to Alex's article (non-paywalled at this time)

www.theglobeandmail.com

Two distinct plans for Toronto’s railway lands reveal opposing visions for what the city’s downtown could be

A developer’s proposal appears to have trumped the city’s plans for Rail Deck Park, raising questions over how public and private interests stack up when it comes to urban development, Alex Bozikovic writes
www.theglobeandmail.com www.theglobeandmail.com

A couple of excerpts and a picture to highlight the article's central thesis: (ORCA, as proposed, would represent bad development)

1621319760290.png


***

1621319782594.png


And one image:

1621319823492.png


Needless to say, I concur................

Yuck, another wall between the City and the Lake..........and an under-sized park few people will enjoy, if only because of the elevation change.

I do hope the City finds grounds to appeal the LPAT decision.
 
Frankly, the entire development is ugly, and inaccessible. I found the LPAT case really demoralizing. I also think there is a lot of political play going on with tribunals in general currently, but I will say no more on the topic other than, if you think there is a fair fight happening at LPAT or at the ARB for that matter, you are grossly mistaken.

Anyway, I as well hope the city will find some area of law upon which to seek leave. This would be a scar for Toronto rather than a opportunity.
 
The Front St. side is a podium/streetwall mall with a green roof. Everywhere else people on this forum squeal with delight about canyons and such. Here's one. It's terraced down towards the other side. And it would pay for the half-size park. It's called a compromise. Take it or pay the 1.7 billion for Poop Deck.
 
The problem is that we have the choice of partially public deck funded impart by for profit means or a full public deck which will be magically funded somehow out of thin air. So I'll agree at least that we seem to be stuck between 2 troublesome dichotomies here, unless we go with having nothing at all. /sigh
 
urb@ndweller said:
Seems to me the developers of this project are just using this to increase the value of their air rights. No way this is ever getting built. Leverage to get more cash out of the city......IMO
Click to expand...
Exactly! my point through this whole process, which is why I don't like this proposal in the first place.
It's just to extract more of our tax money
 
The Mayor needs to ask the Billionaires and other wealthy people in Toronto to pony up and partially fund this. That's how Millennium Park was funded through private channels.

Otherwise, we have no choice but to accept a slimmed down version of the park with condos.
 
generalcanada said:
okay i think a huge portion missed here is that even the devs have envisioned a parkland on the area. Why should they? If theyre able to fit 3 more condos instead of the grassland in the rendered images, whats stopping them?

I guess the next lpat hearing for a detailed design would be in about a year or 2 but im very skeptical that they would keep the park area.

Is the LPAT able to say no due to missing features like lots of parkland?
Click to expand...
Supposedly they were not putting condos over the actual tracks. This probably substantially lowers the cost to build.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top