This smells of a long battle between the city and developer. The city kind of asked for it though if they did indeed know about this developer acquiring the rights and they way they worked public opinion first. But maybe that was the best play.
Who knows what the actual expectations are of the developer, but I'd bet this is about the maximum amount of land use they can feasible use; while not making it unreasonable and asking for 20 supertalls (oops, didn't mean to get the forum all excited there ;) ).
But short of the developer paying a large chunk of the 'city owned' decking section I'm not sure this is worth doing for the city. There's already plenty of small and medium parks in the neighborhood. The money would probably be better spent on other projects that don't have a prerequisite of a giant engineering project.
At this point the developer itself would benefit more from the decking than the rest of the city. ...easier to sell units beside a park then a train yard.
The only other solution I see is some kind of land swap with the developer along with a reduction and realignment of the towers to potentially make a large park space still. But I don't know, I don't see it happening. Unfortunately I think the rail deck park is dead. At least we don't have the OMB overloards still of this plan would be going ahead as it now stands. Let's just hope the city can vear this towards something that can benefit the neighborhood more than the currently proposed wide green pedestrian bridge.
 
spaced said:
The only other solution I see is some kind of land swap with the developer along with a reduction and realignment of the towers to potentially make a large park space still. But I don't know, I don't see it happening. Unfortunately I think the rail deck park is dead.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind if the city pivoted to decking west of Bathurst through Shaw/Pirandello; connecting Fort York, Ordinance Triangle, and Stanley Park into a single thing.

I presume the trussing over the Milton/Kitch/Barrie railway portion could be filled solid and support a thin layer of soil, or strengthened until it could.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
I wouldn't mind if the city pivoted to decking west of Bathurst through Shaw/Pirandello; connecting Fort York, Ordinance Triangle, and Stanley Park into a single thing.

I presume the trussing over the Milton/Kitch/Barrie railway portion could be filled solid and support a thin layer of soil, or strengthened until it could.
Click to expand...

Do we know who owns the air rights over that section of the tracks?
 
fanoftoronto said:
Do we know who owns the air rights over that section of the tracks?
Click to expand...

I presume it is Metrolinx and/or the city.

When the Georgetown South, Liberty GO Station, and King Liberty Pedestrian/Cyclist Link EA's were completed, I don't recall mentions of air-rights stakeholders.
 
rbt said:
I presume it is Metrolinx and/or the city.

When the Georgetown South, Liberty GO Station, and King Liberty Pedestrian/Cyclist Link EA's were completed, I don't recall mentions of air-rights stakeholders.
Click to expand...

I think eventually there would be proposals to deck that area over with parks or other developments as space goes down in the core.

Though, I do think for the Rail Deck District, the city should definitely vehemently oppose the "park" as it is currently being proposed. It sets precedence that all the developer needs to do is buy property and give it to the city to make it into a park. What's to stop other developers from buying a dilapidated mid-rise industrial building and saying "that's it, our responsibility is done. It's not "parkland" dedication if there is no park when the development is done! It's ludicrous that they can simply state that they'll "give" the air rights in that section and that settles it. No, the requirement is that 15-20% of the development needs to be a fully fledged park and handed over to the city in that state.

Compare this with the rail over-build park at CIBC square which will be fully decked and the park completed even though it is a non-residential development meaning their parkland dedication requirements are much lower than residential developments. Their parkland requirement is only 2% of the development land area and they've gone above and beyond this requirement.

Here's a counter-proposal, give the air rights to the full 4.34 hectare section to the city, deck the 1.03 hectare area that the developers are responsible for and the city can decide to build the park just in the 1.03 hectare, or the city can pay the extra to deck the entire 4.34 hectare area and build a massive park.
 
The Decision in this case spent a great deal of time discussing whether parkland dedication is actually applicable to this site, and determined that the site is exempt from the Municipal Code requirements.

Click to expand...
  • During his cross-examination of Ms. Bake, Mr. Kagan put to her his contention that the City’s parkland dedication by-law does not apply to the CRAFT Site (as set out below in this paragraph [93] (6)) (“Parkland Exemption”). After some considerable reluctance, during an unfortunately argumentative and evasive period of testimony, eventually Ms. Bake admitted that CRAFT’s legal position is absolutely correct and that the Parkland Exemption applies to the CRAFT Site – however she was unable to avoid expressing her strongly-held view that nonetheless all of this seems “wrong” from a “policy standpoint” (a point also strangely repeated at length in the final submissions of the City’s legal team along with other arguments). In fact, Ms. Bake also conceded that she knew that certain members of the City Planning department, including Ms. MacDonald and Ms. McAlpine, were also aware of the Parkland Exemption and that legal advice was sought on that very issue in connection with the City’s preparations for this LPAT proceeding. The evidence before the Panel demonstrated that a need was recognized to amend the City’s Municipal Code in order to remove the Parkland Exemption before this hearing began and before the City’s case was prepared– which amendment, of course, did not happen.
Click to expand...

  • 3. As noted, the admissions of Ms. Bake summarized in paragraph [93] (2) above were also largely conceded and repeated by Ms. McAlpine and Ms. MacDonald during their cross-examination. Again, however, the Panel noted that there was some unnecessary hesitation by them to acknowledge this point, and apparent reluctance, in their testimony. The Tribunal found this to be counter-productive.
Click to expand...

  • 4. The Panel recognizes that in any hotly contested and important proceeding, it is natural for the witnesses for each Party to find themselves embroiled in the partisan environment thereby created. This is too often the case, notwithstanding the witnesses’ obligation under the Tribunal Rules to provide independent opinion evidence, free of bias, in order to assist the Tribunal. Certainly, at times, the passionate views of Ms. Bake, Ms. McAlpine and Ms. MacDonald strayed very close to the permitted line in this respect. However, the Tribunal understands and accepts that their motivations were likely informed by their longstanding service to the City and, by extension, their views as to how to best serve the people of Toronto. On the other hand, while the Tribunal empathized with this apparent commitment of Ms. Bake, Ms. McAlpine and Ms. MacDonald, the tenor and combativeness of their oral testimony negatively impacted the Tribunal’s view as to the reliability of their opinions. Unfortunately, the Panel also reached the same view on several occasions regarding the testimony of Ms. Bogdanowicz, Mr. Mendes and Mr. Gladki as is further discussed below. However, the Tribunal found it unnecessary to conclude that any of these witnesses engaged in deliberate behaviour in breach of their duties owed to the Tribunal.
Click to expand...

  • 5. Despite the enormous time and energy spent by the City’s legal team in pursuing the position that the CRAFT OPA must identify and designate the specific location and size of a public park on the CRAFT Site, the Panel is forced to the conclusion that this specific position is not supported in law and also notes that the City’s counsel spent very little time in final written or oral submissions effectively dealing with what they portrayed to be a key issue. In fact, at certain points, counsel for the City seemed to ignore the admissions of City witnesses and the reality of the Parkland Exemption:
Click to expand...
  • The Tribunal disagrees with the proposition stated above by counsel for the City in paragraph [93] (5). Instead, the Tribunal concurs with and expressly adopts the conclusions stated in final argument by CRAFT’s counsel that:
Click to expand...

  • The CRAFT air rights are exempt from parkland dedication. This is provided for in policy 11.14 of the Railways Lands West Secondary Plan and policy 11.6 of the Railway Lands Central Secondary Plan. Policy 5.6.6 of the City’s Official Plan further provides that in the case of a conflict between the Official Plan and a Secondary Plan, the Secondary Plan prevails. Since the Secondary Plan exempts the CRAFT site from parkland dedication, it prevails over the more general parkland dedication policies in the Official Plan. Moreover, the CRAFT air rights are also exempt by virtue of section A in Schedule B, Article III of the City’s parkland dedication by-law (which is contained within the City’s Municipal Code)…That section provides that the parkland dedication provisions of the Municipal Code do not apply to the geographic area of The Railway Lands as described in By-law 612-85. Andrea Bake confirmed that the CRAFT air rights are wholly contained within the geographic area known as the Railway Lands in By-law 612-85…[and further]… confirmed that Exhibit 17 [in this proceeding] is that bylaw. [Ms. Bake conceded that]…the term “Railway Lands” in the definition section of the bylaw which defines that Railway Lands as “means that part of the City of Toronto located within the area delineated and designated by heavy lines on Map 1 contained in Appendix A to this by-law and referred to thereon as “Railway Lands”…Andrea Bake then confirmed that all of the CRAFT air rights are contained within the Railway Lands as shown on Map 1… Andrea Bake confirmed that the CRAFT air rights were exempt from parkland dedication… [emphasis added]
Click to expand...
 
Jul 5, 2022

34DE400E-8135-48E5-8EAC-B8729ACA3754_1_201_a.jpeg



039C575E-02BF-46B9-9117-3D84F176404B_1_201_a.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top