Northern Light said:
I can't resist pointing something out.........

This is the size of central park, overlaid onto to downtown Toronto:

View attachment 381984

Obviously the dimensions aren't identical, but I tried to mimic central park by following roads and maintaining something close to the 5:1 ratio of length over width.

But the km2 is identical to Central Park.

Size differential:

Central Park: 843 acres

Rail Deck Park: 20 acres

Size difference ~ 42x
Click to expand...

I think we all know Central Park is bigger - I don't see the need for the comparison - but it only enforces the need for this park. Even built as big as possible it will still be a small park compared to many parks.
Just curious, what point were you trying to make, if any?
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
$930M just for the park, exclusive of land costs! Call it a billion and then let's add a few hundred million for Toronto to first acquire the land!

As you basically end off saying, this is not a lost opportunity. The focus all along should have been working with the developer to create a landmark destination that could still be something akin to MP, but without the costs falling on taxpayers. I don't know the developers or how sincere/progressive they may be but there is no reason to think something great can't be done here - certainly the City should use every tool they have to require as much. Their mistake was trying to present an alternative/competing concept they had no hope of realizing. Now that that ship has sailed, let's push the City and developer to maximize the opportunity before them.
Click to expand...

So...a couple of nice parkettes and a shiny plaque?
The developers plan cuts the potential park (smaller than Central Park I hear) in half.

Id like to think Toronto can dream bigger and discover a way to make it happen. I'm quite surprised to see how many on this forum so willing to throw in the towel and say its impossible, give up..
Isn't there any fight left in you?

Not so many years ago we were told Skydome (Rogers Centre for the younger crowd) was impossible and out of reach for Toronto - But we did it.
 
Big Daddy said:
So...a couple of nice parkettes and a shiny plaque?
The developers plan cuts the potential park (smaller than Central Park I hear) in half.

Id like to think Toronto can dream bigger and discover a way to make it happen. I'm quite surprised to see how many on this forum so willing to throw in the towel and say its impossible, give up..
Isn't there any fight left in you?

Not so many years ago we were told Skydome (Rogers Centre for the younger crowd) was impossible and out of reach for Toronto - But we did it.
Click to expand...

You misunderstand what people are saying.

It's not that we can't have a large park near downtown; it's that this one, as an idea isn't that interesting, and is poor value for money.

We're building a great new park with its own river over in the Portlands (which is much closer to downtown Toronto, than is Central Park to Lower Manhattan).

We can do more at scale by creating significant new parks abutting the lower Don, and by extending existing major parks such as Moss Park and Alexandra Park.

The object is quality space that meets peoples needs (nature, playgrounds, sports fields, community gardens, DOLAs etc.)

We can achieve much more, and much better space for what Rail Deck Park would cost, than throwing lots of money at the latter.
 
Last edited:
Big Daddy said:
So...a couple of nice parkettes and a shiny plaque?
The developers plan cuts the potential park (smaller than Central Park I hear) in half.
Click to expand...
In addition to the points already made, the point you're missing is simply this: they didn't cut a park in half.

There
never
was
a
park
in
the
first
place.

Obviously I'd like a big park in downtown. I'd like parks all over the place. Parks are great. But the City can't just build a park where you or I live (I've made this point repeatedly, I know) because the larger populace agrees more parks are a civic benefit. The City has to ACQUIRE the land. The City has to be able to fund the park. The City has to operate the park.

If the developers "stole" public land the City was about to build a park on, that would be a tragedy, and that's the bunk the City has kind of tried to sell. It's not what happened. The developers legally acquired the land and the City tried to do an end-around and deny them the right to develop it and they lost. The park was a cynical PR campaign from the start; don't fall for it just because we agree it'd be awesome if there was a park there. I hope that the City uses its leverage to work with the developer to build the biggest and best possible park - and, yes, we can fight for that - but that would be a big change from the City taking an all-or-nothing approach and refusing to negotiate with legit landowners in the hopes that they can steal the land on "our" behalf.
 
I still find it hilarious that anyone thinks the developers have any interest in paying a cent for a park here. They are going to wring as much money as possible out of the city for any parkland at all. This is just going to turn into a total waste of taxpayer money to claim we built any park at all over the rail corridor when that money could be used for better parkland elsewhere. Just let the developers stick City Place 2.0 here (because that is probably what this will become) and use public money where it will get us better value.
 
TossYourJacket said:
I still find it hilarious that anyone thinks the developers have any interest in paying a cent for a park here. They are going to wring as much money as possible out of the city for any parkland at all. This is just going to turn into a total waste of taxpayer money to claim we built any park at all over the rail corridor when that money could be used for better parkland elsewhere. Just let the developers stick City Place 2.0 here (because that is probably what this will become) and use public money where it will get us better value.
Click to expand...

Erm, they are legally obligated to provide parkland, per the Planning Act so it doesn't matter whether they have an interest in it or not.
(They can also provide cash-in-lieu of parkland, it's true - but on a site like this, there is almost certainly a little of each and if you want money to be spent on parkland elsewhere, that's literally what cash-in-lieu is for.)
They certainly don't get to "wring money out of the City," it's kind of the opposite.
I don't know where you think taxpayer money is being "wasted" on a private project.

Very few people here seem to understand what the standard process for this stuff is and, in particular, what the process has been on this site.

There seems to be some odd assumption that all undeveloped land is default parkland owned by the City unless someone buys it and, being meany capitalist developers, tries to extort the city and put buildings on it. This is not how development works in Toronto, Ontario or anywhere else.
 
Last edited:
In the absence of a PDF of the slides, here's some screen grabs from the Presentation.
Screenshot 2022-03-13 at 16.58.55.png
Screenshot 2022-03-13 at 17.00.13.png
Screenshot 2022-03-13 at 16.59.45.png


(There's been a bit of discussion in the Rail Deck Park thread.) To me, this looks much more positive compared to the previous proposal - but there's still several issues with it.
  • They want a long slither of Front St property from the City to reduce the change in elevation - despite the omission of car parking above the deck in this proposal.
  • The East Block looks to be the easiest to built a deck on (which is why the Rail Deck Park proposal had it as Phase 1) - I would be worried about the developer building that phase first, and then delaying the rest of the development/parkland. It also would diminish the quality of a 'parkland' connection to Union Park - which proposes 2 acres of park space from Blue Jays Way to John Street.
  • I'm not against the idea of the developer collaborating with the City to develop some quality parkland in this location - but the City has to be careful not to have the developer lead you along - the developer gets all the lovely profits, and you get all the cost of building a park. The City shouldn't subsidise the construction of the deck for residential development, for example.
  • The great idea about a Rail Deck Park - is that it would allow for large open parkland, that other parks in the central downtown cannot provide. Playing fields, large open space, gardens, off leash areas, running trails and playgrounds - in an extremely central location. Even large parks like Canoe Landing (8 acres) have relatively restricted / compromised park programming.
  • I wonder what Metrolinx thinks of the proposal - especially regarding the Spadina/Front station proposal (TOD?), and the (probable) future electrification works.
  • Curious regarding separation distances between these buildings and the Well - the tower placement might be more about engineering rather than good design, unfortunately (i.e. where can foundations for a tower feasibly be located).
  • I also wonder what the construction cost of a deck for a park is - compared to the construction cost of a deck that needs to support a tall residential tower!
  • Would need to see more details regarding the towers to comment fully - I do wonder whether a thinner "central block" with a continuous Front St frontage would be cheaper and provide more quality green space.
 
UT's @AlexBozikovic has a new column on this up at the Globe and Mail:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/art...osal-for-site-where-toronto-had-planned-rail/ (behind the paywall at time of posting)

The key bits:

The developers have submitted the formal application to the City for this proposal (though it's not yet in the AIC)

The current iteration:

11 towers
5,.750 units
11000m2/ 118,000ft2 of retail
a hotel

+ 4.45ha/11 acres of rail deck park.

***

Developers say the proposal is a negotiating starting point w/the City

***

A larger park is possible if the City wants to pay for it

***

The base ask from the developers to the City is 670M; plus 4M of the Front Street ROW

***

Alex then goes on to sum up the key design changes from the earlier iteration and then after offering some skepticism argues this could be a good City-Building opportunity.

***

My take remains that I'm fine w/developers building here; on their own dime. I'm not convinced that Rail Deck park is place where all Parks capital dollars should go for a decade.

The developers would be required to provide a park regardless (likely in 2-3 acre range). I'm not opposed to a larger park here, primarily for sports fields for reasons I've outlined in the past
I just feel that for that kind of money, more and better park space could be obtained elsewhere.

'University Park, anyone?
 
Northern Light said:
Alex then goes on to sum up the key design changes from the earlier iteration and then after offering some skepticism argues this could be a good City-Building opportunity.
Click to expand...
To be specific, he points out (correctly) that he’s sceptical that the city, which has had an austerity-focused mindset for a long time, would ever spend the 2 billion to build the Rail Deck Park. Given that, maybe development and a small park is better than nothing.

He then concludes by saying “ With the right design, it could even be great.”, which I guess one could say about any plot in the city.
 
turini2 said:
Can anyone remember how much is in the "downtown parks" Section 42 kitty? Was it $400 million?
Click to expand...

See this post by me, last May for the long-winded answer:

Rail Deck Development | 239.43m | 72s | Fengate | Sweeny &Co

(you can also search for PL180211 on the LPAT website) It's not on the LPAT site yet. They're very inconsistent about that kind of stuff. Speaking of updates, can anyone tell when the last time was that the City updated their website for RailDeck Park - you know, their iconic, huge...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

***

Short answer, you're in the ballpark; the gross balance will be much higher in this year's report I think; (report should be due shortly); but the call on that money is also substantial.

In other words, not everything in the kitty is available. But there's new money arriving regularly.
 
Northern Light said:
See this post by me, last May for the long-winded answer:

Rail Deck Development | 239.43m | 72s | Fengate | Sweeny &Co

(you can also search for PL180211 on the LPAT website) It's not on the LPAT site yet. They're very inconsistent about that kind of stuff. Speaking of updates, can anyone tell when the last time was that the City updated their website for RailDeck Park - you know, their iconic, huge...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca

***

Short answer, you're in the ballpark; the gross balance will be much higher in this year's report I think; (report should be due shortly); but the call on that money is also substantial.

In other words, not everything in the kitty is available. But there's new money arriving regularly.
Click to expand...
Thanks for doing the digging, that must have taken ages!
 
turini2 said:
Thanks for doing the digging, that must have taken ages!
Click to expand...

You're welcome. And nah.....it's usually findable in 2 different reports that come out usually once per year. If not, I can phone someone.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top