Avenue said:
That's so typical.
Click to expand...

Not really. The community is pro-development in general. The Well sailed through with absolutely no opposition. I'm sure the community would support the project with more parkland, improved circulation, and more amenities. The proposal, as envisioned right now by the developer, is simply not good.

Sending someone to the community consultation who cant answer any questions or dispel any concerns isn't how you win support for your project.
 
Who is the majority of the community??, the people that live in the high-rises on the other side of the tracks?
because if that's the case, of course they want a full park instead of a watered down park with buildings blocking there northern views of the city
 
I don't blame them for wanting that. I want that too… unless we don't have a way to pay for that, and so far, we don't.

That said, the ORCA proposal needs work. To that end, ORCA is hosting a pair of identical design workshops on October 14th. They're at the Marriott Rogers Centre between 9:30 AM and noon, or 1:00 and 3:30 PM, and if yo'd like to participate they'd like you to register at www.orcatoronto.com

42
 
Automation Gallery said:
Who is the majority of the community??, the people that live in the high-rises on the other side of the tracks?
because if that's the case, of course they want a full park instead of a watered down park with buildings blocking there northern views of the city
Click to expand...

This is such a short-sited and petty view. This park's benefits will be far-reaching. Not just for the people that live next to it, but to the growing number of commuters who work downtown, tourists, and, more importantly, future generations.

What’s more, it will help to balance out the amount of green space per person in the city. The hundreds of thousands of people (and growing) who live downtown can’t all be expected to cram into Trinity-Belwoods, which is literally at capacity in the summer.

Toronto, in general, is so far behind other great cities in terms of green space that this park project should be a given. We should be aiming towards London in terms of parks, not settling for our abysmal current state.
 
dsouzaman said:
This is such a short-sited and petty view. This park's benefits will be far-reaching. Not just for the people that live next to it, but to the growing number of commuters who work downtown, tourists, and, more importantly, future generations.

What’s more, it will help to balance out the amount of green space per person in the city. The hundreds of thousands of people (and growing) who live downtown can’t all be expected to cram into Trinity-Belwoods, which is literally at capacity in the summer.

Toronto, in general, is so far behind other great cities in terms of green space that this park project should be a given. We should be aiming towards London in terms of parks, not settling for our abysmal current state.
Click to expand...

It'd be great to have London's underground transportation system, too, but calling that a "given" isn't particularly helpful in the same way that it's not helpful in the case of a billion dollar park with similarly no funding plan. Nice things are indeed nice but most often cost money, and that's the rub here; I don't think it's much more complicated than that.

Also, I think it's grossly inaccurate to call Toronto's current array of greenspace "abysmal", and there are many places in London (including the area in which I lived in that city) that suffer from a lack of greenspace, as well.

I note, too, that it's often overlooked in this debate that there are two parks currently under development in this very area, with more brand new public realm space coming with the Well, as well.

I'm pretty firmly on team "let's negotiate with the proponent here to scale up the amount of green space they've currently proposed" instead of telling everyone that condos suck and developers are greedy pigs, whilst offering no real solution to achieve the proposed alternative.
 
Ah, so the private groups do own something

Much enthusiasm for Rail Deck Park plan that is short on details
Details of how it will be built and developers’ competing interests remain sparse, but report on costs and funding plan is expected at city hall in November.

Staff also clearly outlined for the first time that the majority of the air rights over the rail corridor — the space above the active railway lines that carry GO trains in and out of Union Station — belong to a mix of private groups, which includes a claim from a group of private developers who have proposed to deck over the space to build eight office and condominium towers.
More.....https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...-deck-park-plan-that-is-short-on-details.html
 
Can the city legally nullify the value of those air rights by designating this as parkland? Would that survive a court challenge?

I'm thinking it must be political posturing by the mayor to dig in his heels on this, but what is his endgame beyond the next election? I can understand Cressy pulling for his ward. But raiding all of the greenspace funds, adding taxes, and borrowing a lot more to make this happen is unfair to the rest of the city.

This part of the city has a lot of greenspace within 10 minutes walking distance already, including two new parks and amazing waterfront possibilities like Bathurst quay that has more potential appeal than the raildeck. Some combined development along the rail corridor can be a win-win for public accountability, fairness, and creating a great park. Where are the pragmatic leaders willing to make compromises?

quote from the article --
"Councillor Joe Cressy, who represents Ward 20 (Trinity-Spadina), which contains the corridor, noted there are hundreds of millions of dollars in reserves that are dedicated to the creation of parks and that the city is currently under-collecting those fees from developers through provincial legislation."
 
^effectively, no. The city has to value the land as if it were not going to be used for a public purpose.

The big question is going to be whether this is really a financially feasible development that means the land has actual value. The cost of the rail corridor cover is going to significantly reduce the land value compared to a similar unencumbered parcel.
 
What ever happens it's going to really beautify that's area. Its would look even better if the tracks were covered from the Don river right to the Exhibition area!
 
I don't think this is correct. I attended the meeting and although she pointed out that the space is privately-owned, I don't recall anyone ever confirming that the private developers who submitted the proposal actually own anything. I'm not saying they don't I just didn't hear anyone say they did.

Automation Gallery said:
Ah, so the private groups do own something

Much enthusiasm for Rail Deck Park plan that is short on details
Details of how it will be built and developers’ competing interests remain sparse, but report on costs and funding plan is expected at city hall in November.

Staff also clearly outlined for the first time that the majority of the air rights over the rail corridor — the space above the active railway lines that carry GO trains in and out of Union Station — belong to a mix of private groups, which includes a claim from a group of private developers who have proposed to deck over the space to build eight office and condominium towers.
More.....https://www.thestar.com/news/city_h...-deck-park-plan-that-is-short-on-details.html
Click to expand...
 
deep6ing said:
I don't think this is correct. I attended the meeting and although she pointed out that the space is privately-owned, I don't recall anyone ever confirming that the private developers who submitted the proposal actually own anything. I'm not saying they don't I just didn't hear anyone say they did.
Click to expand...

Probably they don't want anyone to know that,
there is even a video out there from yesterday with Joe Cressy straight face saying

"there is a private proposal that has come forward proposing to build towers on top of city owned land which we are not selling"
Does Joe and John even know what the city owns, i doubt it
http://www.680news.com/video/2017/09/25/it-will-be-built-tory-says-at-rail-deck-park-meeting/
 
part of the ORCA proposal is on city land, as they own the frontages along the main streets. ORCA (maybe) just owns the land above the rail corridor.

Besides, if it is not owned by ORCA, it is owned by TTR - which is a privately held rail company that is 50/50 split between CPR and CN.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top