Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[gristle]

I don't understand why these threads were merged. Its really messed up the chronology of the thread. The issues may be related, but they are their own issues.

I also agree. These are separate issues presented at different times. One appears to be its own supposedly unique waterfront project (the stadium), the other is presented as a major upending of the existing waterfront master plan.

The Fordi are attempting to create a crisis on the basis of the original timelines. The aim is to put a halt to the existing project in order to expedite quick land sales and rapid development. There is no design consideration and no interest in creating a city-building legacy at the waterfront. This is all about selling land and developing it as quickly as possible. If this should proceed (because the city can withdraw from Waterfront Toronto) the glorious shopping centre will eventually morph into a big box collection of stores surrounded by parking lots. No one builds big malls any more.

 

[Dilla]

I see no harm in at least opening the matter for discussion if someone can come up with a workable plan that actually has some kind of financing attached to it.

Is this open for discussion? I mean, he made the plan up and presented it without discussing it with anyone. And it's only a week until the executive committee will try to wrestle all control over this land into city hands. Doesn't sound like a guy who wants to discuss much to me. Moreover, this plan is not workable, nor does it have any kind of financing attached to it.

In fact, are we talking about the same thing?

 

[howl]

I think what one has to understand is that this method of development – coming forward with elaborate and glitzy plans – getting approval, because it’s too big to say no to – and then just building the cheap profitable stuff (like the mall) and not all the bells and whistles, is exactly how a lot of suburban development has been done in Ontario for the last fifty years. What’s always pissed off the suburban developers is the more sophisticated planners and councilors at the City have required them to provide actual studies and reports that show the economic, social and environmental benefit of their plans before they approve anything, rather than just the smoke and mirror shows. Now that Ford is in the driver’s seat the suburban developers see their one chance to dismantle the system that serves Toronto so well.

What I fear the most is if the PC’s get into power during the next election things will go very bad for Toronto, because they just might allow the system to be dismantled. While I’m not generally a partisan voter I’m seriously considering getting behind one of the other party candidates for this election because the combination of Ford, Hudak and Harper will be economically devastating for Toronto.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

He also mentioned the Saints would move to Toronto.
I won't be surprised if these companies get their lawyers involved soon.

This was dealt with already.

 

[js97]

I wonder if this has anything to do with Ford suddenly being interested in the Portlands?

York prof’s research on developer donations looks at Mayor Ford

An influential Vaughan developer, who donated generously to Mayor Rob Ford’s pre- and post-election fundraising drives, controls a long-term lease on the Port Lands’ Hearn Generating Station, which has been proposed as a site for an NFL stadium by the mayor’s brother Doug, wrote The Globe and Mail April 29.

Developer Mario Cortellucci, together with various relatives and individuals who listed his company’s premises on their donor forms, contributed $30,000 to the mayor’s campaign, about half of which was raised following the election as part of a multi-candidate effort to eliminate campaign deficits. He also secured a private meeting with Rob Ford, according to scheduling documents released under access to information laws.

The figures, based on election contribution filings, were compiled by York University political scientist Robert MacDermid [Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies].

“The important point here is that when a councillor or mayor runs a deficit and wins, every person seeking influence crowds into the subsequent fundraising events,” [said MacDermid].

While Cortellucci’s development companies in the past have pledged hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions to right-of-centre municipal and provincial candidates, MacDermid’s analysis shows the 2010 race was his first serious foray into Toronto politics. In 2006, Cortellucci and another relative gave just $2,500 to Jane Pitfield’s mayoral campaign. In 2010, he donated $4,000 and $2,000 to George Smitherman and Joe Pantalone respectively.


http://ylife.news.yorku.ca/2011/05/...h-on-developer-donations-looks-at-mayor-ford/

All this partisan bickering, but the it's obvious...



For the record, politicians of all stripes try to load their own gravy train.. Doug Ford is looking for some of his own Gravy money - Giambrone did it when he was TTC chair (30-40k min for bidding) Smitherman (1B in ehearl) . The Fords are well off, but not that well off. Doug Ford is definately the most dangerous and potentially devastating politican this city can have. Rob is the naive and hardline partisan. Doug is the weasel business man. This might turn into another Ontario Place.

 

[Marko]

Is this open for discussion? I mean, he made the plan up and presented it without discussing it with anyone.

The interview on CTV (available online, I think) presents it as less of a finished plan and more of a proposal. Any proposal worth showing anyone ends up being packaged in a way that appears as a 'plan' to follow, but be made it clear that it's entirely up for debate and discussion and modifications if necessary.

How do you mean he presented it? So far he has only said that he has had meetings and come up with something he's going to be presenting.

 

[spider]

Why all this angst about the post industrial wastelands, sow grass, plant trees and leave them alone. When a genuine need arises the land will still be there. Let's straighten up our financial problems first.

The public have made it pretty clear by their relative indifference to the EX, Ontario Place, the Islands etc that they are not in need of even more playgrounds.

People are not going to flock to shopping attractions in an area that is out of everyones way and for the love of God, please, no more CONDOS.

There is nothing wrong with Condos but there are wrong locations for them. There are literally miles of desperately underdeveloped properties on existing streetcar lines that could be redeveloped if the City offered some incentives. Everyone wins, Transit, Tax assessments and we have more parkland.

 

[js97]

That I agree with. I have friends in development and they all say working with Water front toronto is a nightmare. No one wants to make decisions, no one works past 4 etc.

The problem with the portlands is that it's entangled in bureacracy and a maze of policy.

 

[Dilla]

The interview on CTV (available online, I think) presents it as less of a finished plan and more of a proposal. Any proposal worth showing anyone ends up being packaged in a way that appears as a 'plan' to follow, but be made it clear that it's entirely up for debate and discussion and modifications if necessary.

How do you mean he presented it? So far he has only said that he has had meetings and come up with something he's going to be presenting.

We don't know who he presented it to (he won't say), but "their jaws hit the floor". Presumably it was a group of developers.

If they just want to put a proposal out for discussion, fine. However, that there's a plan only a week after this proposal is made public to take all of the portlands under city control, I'd say they're serious about putting some god awful crap down there, and soon. If they just want to bat ideas around, what's the rush. The previous quick moves the Fords have made, and the timing of all this suggests to me that they may be quite serious about moving forward with at least some of this.

 

[Nads Gone Bads]

Given how much UT devotes itself to "design matters", I think it's worth focussing upon StCatharinesCitizen's "taste values" for a second...


THIS...is a Gem?!? Let alone "almost as much as the falls themselves"?!?

So, if you want proof that StCatharinesCitizen is a philistine piece of garbage, there it is.

And I'm thinking to a post I made in the other waterfront thread...

So, to the likes of StCatharinesCitizen, this
was worth sacrificing on behalf of this

to the point where "yeah, if they had to do it over again, they would".

You just don't get it. People have different tastes. Why can't you just disagree without resorting to personal insults? Stop being such a prick. The break up of your family has left you as an eternal jackass. I guess your unsurpassed knowledge of architecture and urban planning gives you a sense of importance and self worth that wasn't existent in your upbringing.

 

[jje1000]

Why all this angst about the post industrial wastelands, sow grass, plant trees and leave them alone. When a genuine need arises the land will still be there. Let's straighten up our financial problems first.

Our financial problems are not going to be solved with the Fords at the helm. Selling the Portlands is clearly a one-off source of income.

Why all this angst about the post industrial wastelands, sow grass, plant trees and leave them alone. When a genuine need arises the land will still be there. Let's straighten up our financial problems first.

The public have made it pretty clear by their relative indifference to the EX, Ontario Place, the Islands etc that they are not in need of even more playgrounds.

People are not going to flock to shopping attractions in an area that is out of everyones way and for the love of God, please, no more CONDOS.

There is nothing wrong with Condos but there are wrong locations for them. There are literally miles of desperately underdeveloped properties on existing streetcar lines that could be redeveloped if the City offered some incentives. Everyone wins, Transit, Tax assessments and we have more parkland.

So... do nothing except grow more trees, right?

That I agree with. I have friends in development and they all say working with Water front toronto is a nightmare. No one wants to make decisions, no one works past 4 etc.

The problem with the portlands is that it's entangled in bureacracy and a maze of policy.

The common man's convenient anecdote! Conversely, I have friends in development and they all say that they love the new parks that Waterfront Toronto builds.

 

[adma]

You just don't get it. People have different tastes. Why can't you just disagree without resorting to personal insults? Stop being such a prick. The break up of your family has left you as an eternal jackass. I guess your unsurpassed knowledge of architecture and urban planning gives you a sense of importance and self worth that wasn't existent in your upbringing.

Technically, the freedom of speech that allows people to have "different tastes" also allows for people to, uh, bludgeon with words. In other words, according to Web Libertrollian logic, you're arguing against what you're advocating.

 

[spider]

Originally Posted by spider
Why all this angst about the post industrial wastelands, sow grass, plant trees and leave them alone. When a genuine need arises the land will still be there. Let's straighten up our financial problems first.

The public have made it pretty clear by their relative indifference to the EX, Ontario Place, the Islands etc that they are not in need of even more playgrounds.

People are not going to flock to shopping attractions in an area that is out of everyones way and for the love of God, please, no more CONDOS.

There is nothing wrong with Condos but there are wrong locations for them. There are literally miles of desperately underdeveloped properties on existing streetcar lines that could be redeveloped if the City offered some incentives. Everyone wins, Transit, Tax assessments and we have more parkland.

So... do nothing except grow more trees, right?

Precisely, until there is a need instead of a desire. How do you feel about High Park? Should we bulldoze it in the name of progress?

 

[ProjectEnd]

You just don't get it. People have different tastes. Why can't you just disagree without resorting to personal insults? Stop being such a prick. The break up of your family has left you as an eternal jackass. I guess your unsurpassed knowledge of architecture and urban planning gives you a sense of importance and self worth that wasn't existent in your upbringing.

adma already said it better, but there is some irony in that you ask why people can't simply "disagree without resorting to personal insults," then call a fellow member a "prick," and make unfounded and vituperative remarks about his family before concluding that he is an "eternal jackass."

It's no surprise that outside of the small and rather cramped Lord Ford-can-do-no-wrong moron's echo chamber, you have utterly no respect or credibility in this forum.

 

[adma]

Wow you have taken this way overboard into a criticism of my specific taste in architecture which is nothing like what you have presented. I didn't even have a word about Penn Station or Madison Square Garden so thanks for veering from the argument with unjustified information.

Well, if you're going to get into discussions of urban planning like this one, maybe it's worth boning up on the Penn Station/MSG saga for perspective.

I chose to speak of this complex not because of its architecture and landscaping which is clearly not visible in the worst possible picture you chose of it, but because of its integration of far more amenities than just a casino. If you ask people in Niagara Falls, most will say that the casino was one of the best things built down there. I live in Niagara Falls so dont question that opinion.

First of all, through Google-searching (I presume), you misentered the image url--but you're forgiven; it happens to all of us (and sometimes we notice soon enough to correct, sometimes we don't). I'll presume the image come from this link
http://www.thegate.ca/spotlight/travel-2/01384/travel-review-niagara-fallsview-casino-resort/
...and to be honest: photographing it from below the escarpment or from across the fountain doesn't make it any more palatable. Landscaping or no landscaping, added amenities or no added amenities: it's vulgar kitsch, period. Though not without a possibly remediating "self-cognizant" quality; after all, it's a casino complex, what do you expect, it's "honest" about itself. And given Niagara's tourist-based economy, it probably is, on balance, a good thing for the city. But, it's still Niagara Falls: it's not Toronto. And if you, yourself live in Niagara Falls--well, I don't question you about "people in Niagara Falls" (at least generically), but what on earth qualifies you to speak authoritatively on a Toronto issue?!? That's like being a Thomas Kinkade fan expounding on the AGO's General Idea exhibition--you're out of your element.

(Note: I don't mean to paint all Niagara Falls-ians with a common brush. Just as I wouldn't, unlike a lot of "urban leftys", paint all Etobians with a Rob/Doug Ford brush; indeed, I'd deem Rob & Doug guilty of misrepresenting "their own".)

So, to match your offer, if you want an example of what Toronto has in the name of "one of the best things built down here"

And in the name of tit-for-tat, I live in Toronto. So dont question that opinion;-)

"This $1 billion complex with a belle époque theme overlooks the Horseshoe Falls and is one of the most prominent features of the Niagara skyline."

"Entire complex area: 2,500,000 sq ft (232,000 m2)
Casino floor area: 200,000 sq ft (19,000 m2)
Concert Showroom (Avalon Ballroom) with 1500 seats: 1
Hotel rooms/suites: 368
Heath/fitness spa area: 15,000 sq ft (1,400 m2)
Restaurants: 10
Wedding Chapel: 1
Nightclubs: 1
Galleria Shopping Center
Parking Spots in parking garage: 3,000
The casino has a 35-floor 374-room hotel rising from above the casino complex."

Gosh. Golly. Gee whiz.

"One For The Home Team”

Reviewed August 30, 2011 NEW
Thought I would give a Very Good nod to the Fallsview Casino Resort in my own backyard. This is a beautiful property in a beautiful location.The rooms and suites are stylishly decorated and offer magnificent views of the Canadian Falls.The casino is large with an upscale feel rivaling The Bellagio, a favorite of mine.The same wonderful ambiance extends to the...

MY POINT IS THAT INVESTORS ARE WILLING TO CREATE BEAUTIFUL PUBLICLY ACCESSABLE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS. THE ENTIRE FACILITY IS ACCESSABLE OTHER THAN THE 200,000 sq. ft. casino of the 2,500,000 sq. ft. property.

Earlier, you attacked my "criticism of [your] specific taste in architecture which is nothing like what you have presented." And now, you use the word "beautiful", which in effect vindicates my criticism.

Stop getting into personal bashing, thats not what this thread or any other thread is about. Your arguing with someone who will always win so you might as well stop now. Lets get back to the real purpose of this thread and discuss the positives and negatives of this PLAN not ROB FORD.

When you say "who will always win", is it in the sense that when it comes to the general public (including presumably, the "people in Niagara Falls" whom you refer to), Kinkade will always win out over General Idea?

Sure, you may have a point there, but...

(Come to think of it, I'd practically expect that from Doug Ford at this rate. Announcing a humongous Thomas Kinkade gallery as a landmark megamall feature in the Portlands)