cd concept said:
This city is out of control what a joke . We need parks this isn't Hong Kong!
Click to expand...
Hong Kong is surrounded by a very thick layer of forest. just before landing at Hong Kong International Airport you can see how pretty it is.
 
I'll be frank, this honestly just pisses me off.

If this was any other city I would be very optimistic and i'd be looking forward to this as it would truly be the chance to be something special.

But seeing as we are talking about a city which loves to bring mediocrity up to the forefront and stick by the status quo, as i've said before, by the time all is said and done, what's proposed here will turn out being severely value-engineered. For instance, all that green space we've seen on top of those towers will never happen. Then there's the architecture, which as currently proposed, really doesnt bring anything special to the table. It's almost the same cookie cutter stuff we see sprouting all over the city time and time again. If you're going to be proposing something on a scale like this, the architecture needs to be top notch A quality stuff that's truly unique and differentiates itself.

Asides from that, again there's not much park space overall in this proposal. Half the space is compromised by towers, while the other quarter seems to be concrete walkways. That leaves with what, a park that's half the size of Canoe Landing Park (and that's if we're being generous) Downtown is already starved for park space and the residents who live in the area currently would be enough to keep this "park" busy at all points. Now if we add in all this density, the green space is already far too insufficient.

Our planning process needs to be reformed from head to toe, I just find this infuriating and ill-conceived. I'm all for density, actually i'm usually on the side pushing for more dense site in key areas of the city. However this is just ridiculous and screwed up from all aspects; it's like we get the exact opposite of what we need in 50% of what's "planned" in this city.

The planning dialogue is almost like this:

City: "We need more park space."
Province: "Oh did you say you want 10, 200+ metre condos with minuscule park space, let's make that happen for for you."
 
mcornett said:
There is a potential appeal to Divisional Court on question of law only. The City would need to seek leave to appeal. I would anticipate a staff report to City Council seeking these instructions, if they weren't given in advance.
Click to expand...

UtakataNoAnnex said:
As obnoxious as I find this ruling is, the silver lining here is that The City if done right may have found a way to privately fund their Rail Deck dream. I'll agree though, it will likely far from what The City had originally envisioned. /sigh

That said, I don't think this spat is over yet. Probably far from it.
Click to expand...

toronto647 said:
Wow so rail deck park is dead. More condos in City Place. Just what we needed lol.
Click to expand...

cd concept said:
This city is out of control what a joke . We need parks this isn't Hong Kong!
Click to expand...

Amare said:
I'll be frank, this honestly just pisses me off.

If this was any other city I would be very optimistic and i'd be looking forward to this as it would truly be the chance to be something special.

But seeing as we are talking about a city which loves to bring mediocrity up to the forefront and stick by the status quo, as i've said before, by the time all is said and done, what's proposed here will turn out being severely value-engineered. For instance, all that green space we've seen on top of those towers will never happen. Then there's the architecture, which as currently proposed, really doesnt bring anything special to the table. It's almost the same cookie cutter stuff we see sprouting all over the city time and time again. If you're going to be proposing something on a scale like this, the architecture needs to be top notch A quality stuff that's truly unique and differentiates itself.

Asides from that, again there's not much park space overall in this proposal. Half the space is compromised by towers, while the other quarter seems to be concrete walkways. That leaves with what, a park that's half the size of Canoe Landing Park (and that's if we're being generous) Downtown is already starved for park space and the residents who live in the area currently would be enough to keep this "park" busy at all points. Now if we add in all this density, the green space is already far too insufficient.

Our planning process needs to be reformed from head to toe, I just find this infuriating and ill-conceived. I'm all for density, actually i'm usually on the side pushing for more dense site in key areas of the city. However this is just ridiculous and screwed up from all aspects; it's like we get the exact opposite of what we need in 50% of what's "planned" in this city.

The planning dialogue is almost like this:

City: "We need more park space."
Province: "Oh did you say you want 10, 200+ metre condos with minuscule park space, let's make that happen for for you."
Click to expand...
Folks... read the decision.
 
neo said:
Given that this was a high-profile decision, heavily litigated, issued by a panel of three LPAT members, it seems extremely unlikely that the LPAT made a fundamental error of law. This is over. LPAT is the appeal body. It has made its decision.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's not how law works. Courts overturn decisions all the time, including those of appeal level courts. If anything, the complexity of the issues gives rise to a greater likelihood that an error of law was made. However, the standard of review is restrictive and the City may not be able to challenge the Tribunal's findings of fact. That's all TBD.
 
Wow.

Can we spend a few extra billions to move the Cityplace towers back and put these in front of them?
 
Maybe it's just me, but I prefer my tax dollars to be spent on improving transit/hospitals/schools and not to build an extremely expensive park. This way we get the best of both worlds. Yes, the park will be smaller but at least it's way better than what is currently there and way cheaper than what city is/was proposing.

Also, those downtown cliffs could look quite interesting. But those sky bridges are not my cup of tea
 
I'll wait for a proper posting of the report to post something nuance but I also saw this on Twitter and IMHO this isn't hugely shocking (even with the City trumpeting their "victory" however many months ago).

No one disputes parks are needed but the City needs to undertake that legally. The issue all along has been whether the ORCA folks were playing a game or actually owned the land and it appears, despite much scepticism here, that they did own it and have a right, under our legal system, to therefore develop upon it. The City can't build a park where your house is just because everyone agrees that a park would indeed be lovely.

As the City did not own it, all they could do was draw what they want a napkin, generate support by getting people to ooh and aaah and say how much they love parks, play a game of chicken with the legal system and, failing all else, expropriate at huge cost to taxpayers. A lot of people failed to see through that game because, who doesn't love a new park?? Who doesn't hate developers??
But the City lost - or so it seems right now.

This isn't the end of the game, anyway. There's still plenty of room for both sides to negotiate and for Toronto to end up with many acres of new, strategically located parkland. We'll see lots of upset people and I'm sure the City will express its collective disappointment, as if they ever had an actual plan to acquire the land or build the darned thing. My hope is both sides will be sensible and leverage the development to leave the City and existing/future residents with something truly beneficial.

neo said:
Folks... read the decision.
Click to expand...

I almost clicked the REPORT button under your post to read it but then realized it wasn't going to link the report. So you're safe :)
 
neo said:
Here is the decision.

Edit - The PDF attachment feature isn't working so here is a link: https://we.tl/t-WXhtOb1o8P (ignore - there is no longer a free WeTransfer option)

Here is another attempt: https://www.transfernow.net/dl/20210512tMbYOdo9 -- Warning - lots of ads on this. Follow the link then wait a few seconds for the download link to appear in the middle of the screen.
Click to expand...

Some notable details on the concept plan approved in principle:

Safdie's concept plan:
The concet plan features a collection of six towers, ranging from 43 to 46 stories high, oriented along Front Street at the north edge of the Site in its “West Block” (which can be compared to heights for six towers on the north side of Front Street that are existing and approved ranging from 15 to 46 stories, with little or no open or park-like spaces between them), including both residential, office, retail space interspersed with a myriad of open park-like spaces on various levels which work their way down to the southern edge of the site bordering the narrow City-owned Northern Linear Park strip, (including in some cases on open park-like spaces on the tops of elevated pedestrian walkways between certain towers). East of Spadina Avenue in the portion of the parcel between it and Blue Jays Way, called the Site’s “East Block” are proposed three additional towers, ranging from 44 to 33 to 20 stories with additional pockets of public open park-like spaces
Click to expand...

On the proposed parkland:
To maximize park area, the Safdie Concept Plan proposed a novel cross section that tucks the retail galleria under the park, noting that this was the same strategy successfully deployed at the Singapore Marina Bay Sands waterfront promenade. The Plan devised a truss that spans the railways and accommodates parking within it, the park level is lowered thus improving access from the surrounding developments. Finally, the two levels of retail galleries overlap the various levels of the park, in order to contribute to its animation and public use in all seasons. The proposed design is to create an indoor/outdoor shopping environment that is integrated with the park environment to create a new kind of improved public realm experience; g. Along the south side of Front Street, the planned podium opens onto a wide sidewalk and public realm where nothing exists today. The Safdie Concept Plan’s goal is to preserve the grading of the City’s Northern Linear park while enhancing it by way of its integration with “…the much larger urban park over the rail deck, with easy access from the South by way of stairs and accessible ramps.
Click to expand...
  • The concept plan includes 13 acres of parkland (compared to Rail Deck Park's 20 acres)
  • Provide for a minimum of 0.30 hectares (0.74 acres) of public parkland east of Spadina Avenue and a minimum of 1.28 hectares (3.16 acres) of public parkland west of Spadina Avenue in the “Mixed Use Areas” if all of Northern Linear Park is effectively removed to permit decking.
  • High-quality east-west and north-south publicly accessible connections will be provided, connecting Bathurst Street and Spadina Avenue with Blue Jays Way and Front Street West with Ice Boat Terrace and Blue Jays Way.
  • A well-designed, high quality public realm will be provided along all public street frontages including Front Street West, Spadina Avenue, Ice Boat Terrace and Blue Jays Way.
  • At least 40 per cent of the total number of dwelling units will be provided as two bedroom units or greater, of which, a minimum of 10 per cent shall be three bedroom units in order to provide housing suitable for families with children.
  • At least 20 per cent of the total number of dwelling units will be developed as affordable purpose-built rental housing units.
  • The maximum total density of these lands shall be 4.2 FSI, and a range of residential units may be 2,500 – 3,500.
  • Non-residential buildings, shall be located fronting on the east side of Spadina Avenue.
  • The underground portions of non-residential buildings with frontage on Spadina Avenue will be designed to include knock-out panels to facilitate potential connections to the future Spadina-Front GO RER Station. Owners are also encouraged to connect these buildings to the PATH system, where feasible.
 
turini2 said:
Tory statement
https://twitter.com/x/status/1392553266484023296
Click to expand...

Reading Tory's statement just emphasizes the point I was making perfectly.
If he asks people whether they like parks better than buildings, they all say, "WE LOVE PARKS, MR. MAYOR!"
Well, no you-know-what, sherlock!

Now ask them if they want to allow the City to pay fair market value for their house so they can move out and then let their neighbourhood have a great park where their house used to be AND if they want to somehow find a cool $1 billion-and-change in property taxes to pay for the park built on the land they used to own. Because that's the actual question.

Really, I'm consistently disappointed in how the city has marketed this.
Everyone likes parks. Obviously.
This development includes substantial new parkland.
The City wanted more parkland but didn't have the lands to build it on or the money to build it.
All this spin is just designed to obscure that and most of the opposition to the project has focused on this "parks are nicer than buildings!" argument without getting into the weeds of, like, what you can do on land you legally own.
 
UrbanDan said:
Maybe it's just me, but I prefer my tax dollars to be spend on improving transit/hospitals/schools and not to build an extremely expensive park. This way we get the best of both worlds. Yes, the park will be smaller but at least it's way better than what is currently there and way cheaper than what city is/was proposing.

Also, those downtown cliffs could look quite interesting. But those sky bridges are not my cup of tea
Click to expand...
I agree with the sentiment, but a significant chunk of Rail Deck Park would have come from Section 42 funds earmarked specifically for parks expansion. They can't be used for other things.

Though, if the private sector is going to pay for the park space here, this does leave over $400 million (I think that was the most recent figure? someone feel free to correct me) of downtown-designated Section 42 funds to invest in park space elsewhere in downtown.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top