[fanoftoronto]

Is it that much engineering marvel to pull off? Isn't CIBC square already doing this to connect the towers over the rail deck and build a park?

It's not a humongous engineering marvel to pull of building a park above an active rail corridor. But it is significantly more expensive than building a park on bare land.

CIBC has the benefit of have 2 massive office buildings to cover the cost of the decking and the park. And even still, it's only for maybe 60% of the total area of the rail corridor between Bay and Yonge streets.

Ultimately, as @Northern Light has alluded to, there are easier ways to bring park space to Toronto than decking over the rail corridor. We might get to that situation in the near to mid-future. And when we do get to that situation, we should be ensuring that at least 80% of the corridor between Bathurst and Spadina is parkland.

 

[Northern Light]

Is it that much engineering marvel to pull off? Isn't CIBC square already doing this to connect the towers over the rail deck and build a park?

@fanoftoronto 's response below is a good one..............

It's not a humongous engineering marvel to pull of building a park above an active rail corridor. But it is significantly more expensive than building a park on bare land.

CIBC has the benefit of have 2 massive office buildings to cover the cost of the decking and the park. And even still, it's only for maybe 60% of the total area of the rail corridor between Bay and Yonge streets.

Ultimately, as @Northern Light has alluded to, there are easier ways to bring park space to Toronto than decking over the rail corridor. We might get to that situation in the near to mid-future. And when we do get to that situation, we should be ensuring that at least 80% of the corridor between Bathurst and Spadina is parkland.

That said, a couple of points to add:

1) CIBC's space is a POPs, not a Park. The City is not the owner, and access to the space is restricted by the building management (it opens and closes each day)

2) The total space at CIBC is relatively small ~0.3ha or less than 1 acre. you're not putting a soccer pitch out there; its also structurally supported by/integrated to the adjacent buildings, which reduces the cost of construction substantially vs a stand-alone deck.

3) The USRC is smaller at CIBC, vs west of Spadina where you have a GO Rail yard present. The difference is an extra 40M or so to cover which is more than 50% greater.

4) CIBC Square Park isn't particularly easy to access, its multiple flights of escalators/stairs, 4 storeys into the air. For an accessible, easy to use park, you're going to need to have it meet surrounding streets, ideally with a very gentle grade into the park space before it then becomes level.

5) Any park on a deck will ultimately have to be scraped (removal of all vegetation and structure) every 25-40 years, in order to inspect structure, and refresh waterproofing membranes. This is expensive to maintain, and it minimizes the opportunity for long term tree canopy. Its one thing to do that for a < 1 acre space, its another entirely to do this at a large scale, as people would hope for with any 'Rail Deck' park.

 

[ProjectEnd]

There's this thing of having to stick the park thing over active rail tracks would likely be where most of said funds would be going to build this. To which should go without saying would require a massive amount of engineering feats to pull that off. Best to build parks where surfaces already exist, as opposed building it on thin air.

Same goes for buildings, if you want them to actually happen...

Is it that much engineering marvel to pull off? Isn't CIBC square already doing this to connect the towers over the rail deck and build a park?

It's a POPS, not a park. Also, Hines is paying for it so the City rightly ain't going to look that gift horse in the mouth.

 

[artemperederii]

If that is so impossible, why the guys (developers and city) talking about it and making any proposals? Are they stupid kids? I can’t get it…

 

[karledice]

Also Chicago did this 20 years ago

 

[Northern Light]

Also Chicago did this 20 years ago

View attachment 595777

Just so we're clear, Millennium Park, 20 years ago, cost 475M USD to deliver. Over 200M of that from private donors.

Adjust that for inflation, and the exchange rate and we get:

1.8 Billion CAD, conservatively.

A price of at least 83M per acre

Now, why do I say conservatively? Because the rail yard that was built over in Chicago was far less challenging than Toronto's.

Most of the Chicago site was former rail yard, and actually being used for surface parking. The park actually sits on the parking garage roof.

See site below:

Image Source: https://blogger.googleusercontent.c...ea3a8o3P/s1600/July+20%2C+2018+Blog+Photo.jpg

Given that difference conditions, I would factor in a difference in price of at least 100%

That would put the budget at over 166M per acre.

Simply put, we can do far better putting those kind of resources to work elsewhere.

 

[Skyhighzz]

This remains hot garbage.

The absolute nerve of them. All of them. So brutal.

 

[karledice]

Apparently nothing is getting built so doesn't really matter what they submit lol

 

[Brands]

Apparently nothing is getting built so doesn't really matter what they submit lol

According to you?

 

[rbt]

Apparently nothing is getting built so doesn't really matter what they submit lol

No time soon but Concord, Tridel, and Pinnacle would all happily take on a ready-to-go project of this scale. While construction will be difficult due to the railway, economies of scale not easily available in downtown will offset some of that.

 

[ProjectEnd]

If that is so impossible, why the guys (developers and city) talking about it and making any proposals? Are they stupid kids? I can’t get it…

The site zoned is worth more than the site unzoned. Even without a buyer, that is a truism.

No time soon but Concord, Tridel, and Pinnacle would all happily take on a ready-to-go project of this scale. While construction will be difficult due to the railway, economies of scale not easily available in downtown will offset some of that.

Are CRAFT / Fengate / Liuna / etc. building the deck and dealing with 4-5 years of Metrolinx to deliver a shovel-ready site? If it were derisked as such, sure, lots of folks would bite. As is? Not a chance.

 

[rbt]

Are CRAFT / Fengate / Liuna / etc. building the deck and dealing with 4-5 years of Metrolinx to deliver a shovel-ready site? If it were derisked as such, sure, lots of folks would bite. As is? Not a chance.

As I said in my last post: "No time soon". At some point the construction headache will seem better than the cost of a large chunk of land, evictions, and demolition of existing structures. Maybe we'll hit that point within 15 years. We're already 7 years into this proposal without a zoning approval.

The land today if a vacant parking lot is probably worth $400M (based on the former Globe and Mail site across the street). Would a $300M discount from the purchase price make it appealing? It might be 4 years of Metrolinx but they also avoid 18 months of excavation then building back up to ground. How about if land values double again over 12 years and it's a $600M discount over an equivalently sized nearby lot?

Any purchase agreements will of course have a lot of conditions, such as the seller lining up commitments from Metrolinx for access to the site, etc. but I don't think Craft will need to build the lower levels, just gurantee it is possible to build them.

The CBC building (replaced by much smaller and more standard studio format) will probably go first, particularly if PP gives them a massive budget crunch with orders to restructure.

 

[AHK]

As I said in my last post: "No time soon". At some point the construction headache will seem better than the cost of a large chunk of land, evictions, and demolition of existing structures. Maybe we'll hit that point within 15 years. We're already 7 years into this proposal without a zoning approval.

The land today if a vacant parking lot is probably worth $400M (based on the former Globe and Mail site across the street). Would a $300M discount from the purchase price make it appealing? It might be 4 years of Metrolinx but they also avoid 18 months of excavation then building back up to ground. How about if land values double again over 12 years and it's a $600M discount over an equivalently sized nearby lot?

Any purchase agreements will of course have a lot of conditions, such as the seller lining up commitments from Metrolinx for access to the site, etc. but I don't think Craft will need to build the lower levels, just gurantee it is possible to build them.

The CBC building (replaced by much smaller and more standard studio format) will probably go first, particularly if PP gives them a massive budget crunch with orders to restructure.

With respect to the comment regarding the CBC building - very doubtful that it would go first. When Allied's downtown data centre interests were sold, included in the sale was a very long term lease interest in approximately 180,000 square feet in the CBC building, along with options for further expansion within the building. I am not sure, but I believe there may also be a purchase option with leaseback to CBC for a portion of the space within the building - heard that, but no hard knowledge. Anyway, with the funds invested in the data centre upgrades by Allied and the space's new operator, KDDI Telehouse, this building is not going anywhere soon. If anything goes (first word of this sentence was 'if') it will be the rail deck development before the CBC building.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

According to you?

…no, according to reality apparently. Read above.

 

[FastidiousHack]

Is it that much engineering marvel to pull off?

I wouldn't go so far as to call it a marvel, but as others have pointed out, it's not as simple as a vacant lot.

The primary concern for anything above the rail tracks is the potential of train derailment into the structure. You have to account for a rather large dynamic impact load, and mitigate progressive collapse (like 9-11). The engineers for CIBC square did this using distributed redundancies and larger sections, but it's easier for a simple park space compared to the shear walls of a building core.

It's not particularly hard for the qualified professional, but time for those people and the added material are just more expensive than if it were a vacant lot. It's not the part of the project you want to value engineer.

Beyond that vibrations can be a serviceability concern, which is again just more money. However, all of this must be put into perspective, I can almost guarantee they'll spend more on interior finishes and landscaping than the structure - after all, that's what people pay high $/sqft for.