Save Union Station

Bulletin

SAVE UNION STATION - Bulletin No. 23, April 12, 2004.

*****

A major and unexpected change in direction is being signaled at City Hall for the future development of Union Station. The last three years has been a relentless pursuit of a 100-year lease of Union Station to the Union Pearson Group, without considering the ramifications of such an arrangement for the public interest.

But, at the Toronto South Community Council meeting on April 7 a unanimous decision was taken that the City should get independent advice on public objectives for the redevelopment of the station. This decision must still be approved by the Planning and Transportation Committee at the end of April, and by City Council in mid-May, but it is an enormous opportunity - making up for the many opportunities missed by city council over the past few years - to get the redevelopment of Union Station right. This Bulletin outlines the arguments which led up to the recent decision, the text of the decision itself, and the next steps.

*****

In this issue:

1. What you can do right now.

2. Arguments made by Save Union Station Committee

3. The importance of clear objectives

4. Our request

5. Presentations at the Community Council

6. New Direction

7. Next steps

****

1. What you can do right now.

The decision of the Toronto South Community Council now goes to the Planning and Transportation Committee on April 28. One can expect the Union Pearson Group to be lobbying fiercely against this approach of defining public objectives, so this meeting could be critical. The matter then moves to the City Council meeting in mid-May.

Members of the Planning and Transportation Committee must be reminded of the importance of this decision and how it brings properly into focus the opportunity of achieving public objectives and protecting the public interest. This step should have been taken before bidding began, but it is not too late to take it now and ensure that redevelopment of the Station is well-thought out, and makes good use of the amazing potential in this part of the city.

We urge you to write or phone members of the Planning and Transportation Committee and tell them of your strong support for the decision of the Toronto South Community Council. If you have not written to councillors before on this issue because you despaired that you could have no influence, set that despair aside - there's now an opportunity for the city to get it right.

Members of the Planning and Transportation Committee are:

Gerry Altobello, chair , 416 392 0213,
Peter Milczyn, vice chair, 416 392 4040
John Filion, 416, 395 6411
Cliff Jenkins, 416 395 6408
Howard Moscoe, 416 392 4027
Cesar Palacio, 416 392 7011
Bill Saundercook, 392 4072
Karen Stintz, 416 392 4090

Councillors have a generic email address, the difference being the councillor's name: councillor_name@toronto.ca

The committee secretary is Patsy Morris, 416 392 9151, pmorris@toronto.ca

We urge you to contact members of the Committee.

2. Arguments made by Save Union Station Committee

After the February 12 meeting of the Planning and Transportation Committee, staff came forward with a "consolidated Master Plan", a patchwork of old uncoordinated studies rather than the Master Plan contemplated in the Secondary Plan passed by Council in 1991. (See Bulletin No. 22.) Staff themselves realized its shortcomings, and staff's Supplementary Report dated March 18, 2004 contains the memorable sentence:

"The Master Plan recommended by City staff is a compilation of a number of previously approved planning and heritage documents produced by independent consultants and government agencies with respect to Union Station."

The report goes on to list those studies, including several which pre-date the Secondary Plan, then sums up the purpose and status of this staff document:

"The proposed Master Plan has been prepared in consultation with Union Pearson Group's heritage, planning and transportation consultants in order to address both the City's identified revitalization goals and Union Pearson's proposal."

Thus, to the extent the staff document had a direction, that direction was devising something which fits the Union Pearson bid and the conclusions of its consultants. It was not concerned about public objectives. That was what we had argued in February

3. The importance of clear objectives

It is absolutely critical that the public objectives be determined for Union Station before a final decision is made to sign a lease of 100 years. After the lease is signed will be too late, since a signed lease means the opportunity to intervene to secure public objectives for Union Station will be lost for 100 years. That is presumably why City Council decided in 1991 that the first step in considering any redevelopment was to define a Master Plan touching on the important issues. Here is what Section 10.4.2 of the Secondary Plan states:

"It is the policy of Council to ensure the retention of Union Station as a transportation terminal and to seek to ensure the satisfactory functioning of the station complex.

"To this end it is the policy of Council to adopt a Master Plan for Union Station that will:

* respect the historic significance of Union Station;

* ensure transportation use is the primary function of Union Station;

* provide for each of the necessary transportation functions in a safe, efficient and coherent manner;

* ensure flexibility for expansion and future changes of use; ensure that Union Station is fully integrated with its environs; and

* establish civic design quality."

This section requires City Council to state its public objectives. Should public areas be in public control? Can and should more public use be made of the Great Hall? Should platforms be widened for travelling comfort, and to ensure that travelers can use escalators as they do in other contemporary transportation terminals? What should the public objective be about securing an attractive roof over the tracks, or permitting development over the tracks?

The city has been through a recent example of the problems in not being explicit about public objectives. Suppose one public objective was to create platforms wide enough to meet current code standards, to be comfortable for travelers, and to provide escalators so travelers do not have to tramp up three flights of stairs - to accomplish these changes, the tracks would have to be realigned at a cost probably close to $100 million. If this public objective had been made clear, the city could have bargained for this sum to be included in the recently announced $1 billion package for transit in the GTA rather than the $140 million set aside for Smart Cards.

If the city is clear about its objectives, those objectives can quite possibly be met. But those objectives will never be met if they aren't specified.

4. Our request

Given the muddy and unsatisfactory process to date, and the staff opinion that they have already produced their best effort to satisfy the 1991 Secondary Plan, Save Union Station Committee argued it is most appropriate if the Master Plan be drafted by an outside consultant. Someone not connected to the past process but with excellent planning credentials and known for creative and original thinking, as well as financial credibility, would certainly add much to everyone's understanding of the opportunities.

We suggested that the City Auditor would be the appropriate staff person to prepare the Request for Proposals for the independent consultant and to award the contract.

5. Presentations at the Community Council

There were two notable speakers at the Community Council meeting on April 7: architect and planner Jack Diamond, who studied redevelopment of the station for Via Rail a decade ago; and Robert Allsopp, a member of the firm du Toit Allsopp Hillier, which prepared two pedestrian studies of the station.

Jack Diamond's comments related to the question of future redevelopment and how it fit in with the existing station. He believes new development within the station precinct is needed, but it must be done in the right way. "Development over the tracks will inhibit flexibility in the operation of trains," Diamond told the Community Council, "but some development is needed since it helps generate the money to make other things happen. But development should not inhibit long term flexibility. Defining how that happens is why a Master Plan must be put in place."

Diamond said that there was nothing now in place to protect the public interest. He thought a peer review would be reactive, while he preferred to take a pro-active approach. He said a Master Plan setting out public objectives will be able to ensure that if development does occur it will occur with appropriate foresight and will retain the flexibility required.

Robert Allsopp felt that a Master Plan would integrate the various demands put on the station. "Union Station is a very complicated three-dimensional puzzle," Allsopp said. "It is highly complex physically and jurisdictionally."

Allsopp saw the different parts of Union station as being similar to a jigsaw puzzle. The challenge is to coordinate them and fit them together so they are cohesive and result in a meaningful picture. "The Pedestrian Circulation Mater Plan is one important part of the puzzle, but it is only a part. There are pieces missing from the puzzle such as widening the platforms, and reconfiguring the track," said Allsopp. "The Master Plan is the picture for the box cover of the jigsaw puzzle. We do not have it and that's the picture we need."

Several other people spoke at the Community Council but Councillor Pam McConnell had announced before the deputations the direction in which her motion was going - have an independent study of what the city staff had produced. None of the deputants opposed her motion even though several indicated they supported the Union Pearson proposal. City staff dealing with the Union Pearson bid process were noticeably absent from the meeting - the matter was left entirely with planning staff.

6. New Direction

Councillor Sylvia Watson was in attendance at the Community Council, even though she is not a member of it. She asked Councillor McConnell to amend the motion so it was clear that the outside planner who would be retained by the city would not only review the work of city staff but would work with staff "to create a draft Master Plan." This proposal made the point that what had been produced to date was not the Master Plan called for in the 1991 Secondary Plan. McConnell agreed with this suggestion.

The motions which received the unanimous support of the Community Council read:

"(1) Mayor Miller, in consultation with the Chairs of the Planning and Transportation and Administration Committees and the Ward Councillor, retain an outside planner to conduct a peer review of the existing City and external planning documents and to work with City planning staff to create a draft Master Plan;

(2) a public consultation process be developed to include the Union Station Public Advisory Group, Save Union Station Committee and any other interested parties to discuss the draft Master Plan and peer review and report back to City Council through the Administration Committee."

McConnell also proposed that the staff rezoning recommendation - it permits the west wing of the Station to be converted into a hotel, the space in the basement used for baggage handling be made into the west concourse, and other space be used for commercial purposes - should be approved by Council at this time. This motion was also unanimously supported, although there was some question as to whether the 1991 Secondary Plan allowed this kind of rezoning to proceed in advance of a Master Plan.

7. Next steps

Assuming the motions are supported at these two levels, the Mayor will then appoint an outside planner (probably after holding some sort of request for proposals process.) A suggestion was made that the draft legal documents for the 100-year lease will not be ready to sign before November, which means the process of review and public consultation would not cause delay, although it may cause upset.

As already mentioned above, this is an important time to write or phone the members of the Planning and Transportation Committee, and your councillor to indicate your support for the approach recommended by the Community Council.

Our Email address is signup@saveunionstation.ca and please visit our website at http://www.saveunionstation.ca