Disappointing to see the councilor so adamant on the public directly footing the full bill for a multi-billion dollar park above a rail corridor when a very nice park could still be accomplished with development along part of it. It is irresponsible because we don't have the money for this park, and it would be unfair to take scarce park-related funds from elsewhere in the city for this one project. What will be sacrificed for this? For example, does this mean the Councillor is no longer willing to invest money to secure the parcel for a square near John and Adelaide? Wasn't there a parcel just recently designated parkland near Bathurst and Front? We need public spaces elsewhere and investment in the public realm all around the city. Despite the narrative, the CityPlace area is not deficient in park lands, as there are many within a 10 minute walk.

This sounds like an ill-conceived grab at a legacy project for Cressy and the Mayor for little net benefit over a proposal that includes development as well. It will be mired in delays and cost overruns. Chicago has done better because they have worked more closely with corporate partners and developers to get showpiece spaces built. Some of the NDP dominated city council in Toronto are ideologically incapable of respecting that private/corporate interests can be partners in building public spaces, and very much want to help build it. Major economic players in the city are treated by too many local politicians with suspicion and disrespect rather than the potential partners and Toronto boosters that they'd like to be.
 
Last edited:
ponyboy said:
Disappointing to see the councilor so adamant on the public directly footing the full bill for a multi-billion dollar park above a rail corridor when a very nice park could still be accomplished with development along part of it. It is irresponsible because we don't have the money for this park, and it would be unfair to take scarce park-related funds from elsewhere in the city for this one project. What will be sacrificed for this? For example, does this mean the Councillor is no longer willing to invest money to secure the parcel for a square near John and Adelaide? Wasn't there a parcel just recently designated parkland near Bathurst and Front? We need public spaces elsewhere and investment in the public realm all around the city. Despite the narrative, the CityPlace area is not deficient in park lands, as there are many within a 10 minute walk.

This sounds like an ill-conceived grab at a legacy project for Cressy and the Mayor for little net benefit over a proposal that includes development as well. It will be mired in delays and cost overruns. Chicago has done better because they have worked more closely with corporate partners and developers to get showpiece spaces built. Some of the NDP dominated city council in Toronto are ideologically incapable of respecting that private/corporate interested can be partners in building public spaces, and very much want to help build it. Major economic players in the city are treated by too many local politicians with suspicion and disrespect rather than the potential partners and Toronto boosters that they'd like to be.
Click to expand...


I think Cressy has made clear that this area of Toronto is shouldering the majority of its population growth and that per capita it is massively underserved with respect to green space. This is fact. Also, the City has long acknowleged that it can't afford to buy the space at John and Adelaide because of its property valuation -- the Rail Deck park is meant to make up for the deficiency. Also, it is estimated that it would cost $1 billion to build the park, not multiple billions, so stop with the hyperbole.

Are you kidding about Chicago? To build its waterfront, it had a massive injection of federal funding, not to mention philanthropic funding. It had nothing to do with trading off to private developers. Do you think Central Park was built by hiving off massive sections to private interests? Stop denying the citizens of Toronto things they can afford and deserve. Literally, if we built 1/3 less of a one-stop subway extension to Scarborough we could afford this, and we raised that money with a 0.6% property tax levy that amounted to $16 per household. Finally, the ORCA proposal is objectively opportunistic, money grabbing shit. Blame them.
 
Why must everything done in this city involve condos. We cant seem to build anything without attaching condos to it. There are already too many condos in this area. We don't need anymore ugly glass condos in the area. We all know how this will end up if these developers win. They will fill the majority of the site with condos and leave a small patch of grass for a park and call it a day. Private developers have shown they are not interested in city building in Toronto. We need to wrestle this opportunity away from them and build something which will be appreciated for generations.
 
mcornett said:
I think Cressy has made clear that this area of Toronto is shouldering the majority of its population growth and that per capita it is massively underserved with respect to green space. This is fact. Also, the City has long acknowleged that it can't afford to buy the space at John and Adelaide because of its property valuation -- the Rail Deck park is meant to make up for the deficiency. Also, it is estimated that it would cost $1 billion to build the park, not multiple billions, so stop with the hyperbole.

Are you kidding about Chicago? To build its waterfront, it had a massive injection of federal funding, not to mention philanthropic funding. It had nothing to do with trading off to private . developers. Do you think Central Park was built by hiving off massive sections to private interests? Stop denying the citizens of Toronto things they can afford and deserve. Literally, if we built 1/3 less of a one-stop subway extension to Scarborough we could afford this, and we raised that money with a 0.6% property tax levy that amounted to $16 per household. Finally, the ORCA proposal is objectively opportunistic, money grabbing shit. Blame them.
Click to expand...

Well said. The city is building a useless 1 stop subway in Scarborough which will end up costing in excess of 5 billion. It's literally the most absurd project that I have heard of at that cost. So please spare us with city is taking scarce resources from other parts of the city for this project bull.
 
Somebody is arguing that they have air rights, and they want those rights to be purchased.

That's my unsupported theory anyway.
 
Adjei said:
Why must everything done in this city involve condos.
Click to expand...

It doesn't. See Berczy Park, Trillium Park, and Grange Park for wonderful things completed in the last 3 months alone that don't involve condos.

And, in fact, a lot of the nice stuff we have in this city exists almost entirely because of condos.

I'm frankly sick and tired of people's homes being popular whipping boys in this city. It's so provincial.
 
This park is a chance to create a Trinity-Bellwoods equivalent for downtown Toronto. If we don't capitalize on this opportunity, there won't be another. That ultimatum is why it's critical for us, as stewards of the city, to go ahead with the plan, without compromise.
 
why are people bringing up the Scarborough 1-stop subway here. Yes, that is a silly and wasteful use of public funds, but what does it have to do with this thread?

Not one of these politicians is willing to say what they will give as a sacrifice in order to build this massive public project, but there will have to be either more revenue through special tax assessments or using all of our park resources for this one project, which is completely unfair. The CityPlace neighbourhood has numerous green spaces either adjacent or within 10 minute walking distance, so a more modest rail deck supported by development is more than fair and reasonable. It is the prudent thing to do in a city and province mired in debt and deferred maintenance on essential infrastructure.

This ORCA proposal is only a starting point, and can be improved to offer a showpiece public park, but it is irresponsible and short-sighted for politicians to rule out compromise. Perhaps this is all just posturing to please constituents, and the main actors know what has to happen, but the Mayor and Chief Planner's stance is troubling.
 
Last edited:
ponyboy said:
The CityPlace neighbourhood has numerous green spaces either adjacent or within 10 minute walking distance, so a more modest rail deck supported by development is fair and reasonable.
Click to expand...

The proposed rail deck park's importance goes far beyond that of additional green space for the "CityPlace" neighbourhood. Its size will make it a destination for many people within the downtown core because people far prefer larger green spaces to smaller ones.

Do you think Trinity-Bellwoods is a destination only for the modest population of 2-story houses surrounding it? In fact, Trinity-Bellwoods is essentially at capacity during the summer due to an immense demand for large green spaces from people all over the city.
 
dsouzaman --

But a giant park using the entire rail corridor is less important given the promise of what we are doing with the harbourfront in the area (e.g. Queens Quay re-do; plan around the Malting Silos and undergrounding the airport parking loop), and could do a better job with nearby places like Coronation Park, and linking it to the new Trillium and the Ontario Place lands. Those are the corridors that deserve the most attention and public dollars in terms of being a big destination. We don't need a trinity Bellwoods park over the raildeck when there are such promising green spaces in the nearby area that are underperforming (e.g. Coronation).

Don't get me wrong -- Some park over the rail corridor would be great and makes sense, but why do people insist on the entirety of this area being park? Why the absolutism? The risk is that people are confusing size with quality of design and what people will do there -- we don't need a dozen football field size space for public gatherings here. The full raildeck park might turn out to be big but poorly designed and integrated with the area because the budget will be stretched. Toronto has a poor track record of taking care of it's green spaces, and this one could become an albatross of maintenance expense upon runaway construction costs. Better to allow a smaller but still sizable park be integrated into development along that corridor. Most cities, even great ones, would feel lucky to have such opportunities. Yes the proposal can be improved, but why are some so absolutist about the entire rail corridor being a park. It's that kind of purist insistence that paralyzes improvement sometimes.
 
Last edited:
ProjectEnd said:
For all Jen's posturing, the department did formally accept the application so there certainly is some right for it to exist.
Click to expand...
There's is absolutely no acknowledgement of title or deed by the City accepting an application, not least that it's not their competence to begin with. Accepting an application means it gets in the front door for consideration, nothing more.
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The legalities around the air rights hasn't even been established clearly and indisputably yet - much less the right to develop atop of it as envisioned. Besides, there was nothing new, the gist of it has been reported before.

If the proponent is that confident of their rights, perhaps they should head straight to OMB or the courts instead?

AoD
Click to expand...
Exactly, albeit I suspect the OMB even has no competence in the matter either. Before anything legal can move forward, the title to the land has to be examined, and the Parliament of Canada, as ruled by the Supreme Court on at least one massive case, retains all rights and power over the USRC (formerly referred to as The Esplanade Agreement).

It might take an application to the OMB to cue the Feds to step in with an injunction, and that just might be the start of some sobriety on the whole affair. Since it's known as fact to some of us that there are MPs in the Cabinet looking into this, one can only assume the next significant move is theirs. It may be a few months yet until there's even close to a definitive word on this. If the Feds claim as is their right, there will be a slew of court cases on previous transactions that were never legal to begin with. This is going to be complex. Even the City of Toronto may have acted illegally in selling some plots already, but I digress until word comes down from on high.
 
A little known fact is that you do not in fact need proof of ownership to file an application to rezone. You can rezone your neighbours property if you really want to. Will it end up happening? likely not. Doesn't mean that the city can't accept your application.

This "loophole" is in place to allow potential purchasers to handle rezoning if it is a condition of sale. Since the sale won't close until they rezone, they don't "own" the property, even though they are handling the rezoning.

This also means that if ORCA is willing to pay for a property that they may not own, then that is their prerogative.

Anyone with access to Teranet could do a simple title search and see if ORCA owns this. I suspect they don't.


Regardless, even if they do, The city always has expropriation rights. This is also worth a whole lot less than ORCA is making it out to be. the financial feasibility of bridging the tracks means that the land itself probably needs to be near worthless to work financially.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top