zot627 said:
@cd concept When were the rail lands "designated for park space"? Not in the zoning bylaw or the Official Plan. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks.
Click to expand...
Before cd has a chance to answer, allow me:

First things first: I can find and have produced Ontario Statute, proceedings from the Parliament of Canada and SCC decisions stating that the land is for "public good" (the words as for how long escape me at this time, 'for ever' written archaically is what I recall) . And at no time is there any indication of the railway companies having a right to it, let alone the air rights other than "for railway purposes" and that as an "easement". In fact they have to pay an annual amount towards upkeep of the bridges and other infrastructure.

Beat that. And feel absolutely free to show me any Act of Parliament, Ontario Statute, or Essence of Nosegay that states ownership for the railway since, let alone their 'right' to sell what isn't now theirs, and never was.

All *anyone* has to do at this point is produce clear title. And THEN we'll get to zoning issues...

Getting back to the Brooklyn Bridge...

Edit to Add: I've posted verbatim and linked reference all my claims above in this and the Rail Deck forum, including an excerpt from John Sewell's book "Up Against City Hall" from the chapter entitled "The Railway Conspiracy".

Sewell's book in and of itself is not able to be cited as evidence. His testimony in a court might be. Certainly his references are detailed and able to be further sleuthed.

I'm considering how big a tub of popcorn to buy. This might take some time...

Second Edit to Add: Yes, the City has done 'deals' with the railways, especially surrounding the Convention Centre. There are serious questions surrounding the legality of those transactions. Money was also involved as well as trade of land. Nuff said for now, I think it just might be possible that someone at City Hall turned over a rock, and the stench is drifting down the length of the USRC...

We'll see...
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
First things first: I can find and have produced Ontario Statute, proceedings from the Parliament of Canada and SCC decisions stating that the land is for "public good".
Click to expand...

Most of the former rail lands downtown have already been developed. I think your ship has long sailed.
 
Edward Skira said:
I think your ship has long sailed.
Click to expand...
We'll see. I've been making that point and so has Sewell. Many cases of improper transactions have had to be righted by the courts, a number concern beach-front property, public roads and titles going back to the mid-1800s as being recognized by Ont Superior Court.

But besides all that, if the "ship has sailed"....then where are the charts? No-one yet has produced clear title. Edit: Save for SCC and Ontario Statutes, which are cited.

From BlogTO, quoting UT:
"Determining the ownership of the Rail Deck lands requires what's legally known as a 'title search' —a process that has yet to be completed," explains Urban Toronto.

In the absence of clarity regarding who owns the air rights, a proposal like this one can make a claim to be a player in the determination process. In so doing, the developers have also laid out an intriguing master plan from Sweeny & Co Architects.
[...]
Click to expand...
http://www.blogto.com/city/2017/05/massive-new-development-proposed-rail-deck-park-site-toronto/
 
Last edited:
Edward Skira said:
Most of the former rail lands downtown have already been developed.
Click to expand...
The railways had clear title to them, as explained and cited in detail in the quoted material in this and the Rail Deck forum.

What's being discussed now is the *USRC* (formerly the Esplanade lands). That is what the "Esplanade and Tri-partite Agreement" covers. The land south of there was granted to CP initially for docks and wharves. (Edit: With caveats) The land to the north was also "private" by the terms of the Agreement.
https://books.google.ca/books?id=BupHAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA572&lpg=PA572&dq=esplanade+and+tripartite+agreement&source=bl&ots=1qbQBe9KWL&sig=2Lh_GaBbch7Jndb4kbOCQRPvX9Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib-K28rrnUAhUJzoMKHQluAl4Q6AEIUTAG#v=onepage&q=esplanade and tripartite agreement&f=false

SCC ruling (one of a number, but this one most often cited) euphemistically termed "Toronto Viaduct Case"
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/9855/1/document.do

"I think your ship has long sailed." Didn't work for Six Nations land settlement.

[...]
The Dominion statute could not give capacity to the City of Toronto. This was done by the Ontario statute. The Dominion statute was necessary to make the scheme agreed topermanent and final until otherwise provided for by Parliament.

Section 1 enacts that

all works done or to be done in order to give effect to the agreement hereinafter mentioned, as well as those affected by it, are hereby declared to be works for the general advantage of Canada.

They cannot, therefore, be considered as private works of railway companies. They are to all intents and purposes federal works remaining under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Dominion Parliament, under section 92, par. 10, of the British North America Act.
[...]
Click to expand...
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/9855/1/document.do
 
Last edited:
zot627 said:
@cd concept When were the rail lands "designated for park space"? Not in the zoning bylaw or the Official Plan. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I believe the first time l heard this information was from the Mayer of Toronto saying that the downtown core is in need of new park space etc. And that if the rail lands were to be covered with a park on top. That would be the way go. I didn't know there were developers that wanted to build high rise on the land.
If the two parties compromise I believe this project could move faster than antisipated. With two or more iconic mix use supertalls towers instead of just condos. Could pay for the park instead of the tax payers.
 
That's a good video and hits the right points. I hope that our leaders will come to their senses and realize that they will need to partner and allow development along that corridor to deck the rails with a park. It isn't fair to use all of our park related public money for one space, and integrating development into that corridor can create a more interesting walkable green corridor rather than one large green space.

With some revision, the proposal is reasonable. We don't need green spaces the size of baseball and soccer fields over the rail corridor (nearby Coronation park has that). We could create a kind of highline path and green ribbon with great views that connects several sizable green parks stretching from Bathurst eventually to Rogers Centre, and development along there could pay for most of it.

It is too bad that the chief planner and mayor have set expectations for making it all the park, because I imagine most people would be happy with something like ORCA had it been proposed at the outset. Why have they been dismissive of compromise solutions?
 
Last edited:
A bold vision and it looks fantastic, but I can't help but feel it is all rather pie-in-the-sky for Toronto. Maybe I'm just getting old and cynical.
 
NBGtect said:
"It's what all people of Toronto deserve," along with more grey spandrel ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah I can't help but notice that the towers are totally unarticulated in the video, and the sell is basically all about the benefits (park! affordable housing! large units!) and not the nitty gritty of the proposal. Like who is the target audience?

AoD
 
Probably the media & the planning department.

Kind of a "Wow look at how family-friendly this is, and you also get a park for free!"
 
They're only at the Official Plan Amendment stage at the moment. No Zoning Bylaw Amendment yet, nowhere near Sire Plan Approval. They've spent enough on that website (and presumably quite a number of studies, have you seen how many consultants that they have already engaged? it's quite the list!) that it would be premature at this point to have finished architectural designs. Anything we're looking at now would be quickly drawn exteriors, making sure there are some eye-catching elements, but nothing very deep yet.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top