News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.3K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 1.1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
 393     0 

East Bayfront: Bayside (Waterfront Toronto/Hines/Tridel, Pelli Clark Pelli et al)

This development will remain largely an isolated and self-contained block for years after it's completion. It's just too cut-off for now. However, with George Brown and Corus etc. I think they will be able to fill the retail with standard lunch-time restaurants/ fast-food. This is partly owing to the very isolation of the area itself. In this respect I am more positive about the prospects of retail than some here. However, the "engineering" or "design" of the area, as scarberiankhatru points out, is a bit contrived. Designers, given a blank slate, can sculpt for us a coherent vision but we are very far from that coherent vision resulting in thriving urban districts. I still maintain the opinion that 50 years out master-planned districts are no better than random chance. What I mean is the the smartest planning minds on earth getting together to plan a working vibrant district are no better at it than if you randomly handed out stakes to uneducated people and said go out and stake the land and claim that land for your own interests.
 
Lisa Rochon's commentary:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...een-cubes-lingering-questions/article1679881/

But let’s slip from the interior, privatized world of Corus and head outside and slightly east to Bayside, the largest new residential neighbourhood along Toronto’s waterfront, poised to begin construction. Waterfront Toronto announced this week that an American development-and-design consortium has won the bid to build out the largest development parcels in East Bayfront, comprised of 10 acres between Lower Sherbourne and Parliament streets.

Hines, a large international real-estate firm, has partnered with American architect Cesar Pelli (renowned for his sky-scratching towers in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia) and Stanton Eckstut, one of the master-plan consultants of New York City’s Battery Park City waterfront development. Adamson Architects are the local affiliates.

The Hines-Pelli consortium was favoured by a committee that included Waterfront Toronto CEO John Campbell and the city’s deputy city manager, Richard Butts. I’m not exactly sure why. The financials, which are strictly confidential, must have seriously impressed, because the design itself is largely polite and formulaic but uninspired.

That design got the go-ahead despite the fact that an independent committee of experts, struck to review the proposed revitalization design, heavily favoured a competing submission. That vision – featuring smaller commercial buildings and glass residential studios engaged in an urban dance – was produced by homeboy architects Peter Clewes and Bruce Kuwabara, who joined forces with Walker Corporation of Australia and Cityzen Development Corporation (currently building the Marilyn Monroesque tower in Mississauga). In their report, the committee recommended the locally produced scheme for its permeability and heightened sense of Toronto, including lovely slips of water cut from the lake into the mainland.

Unforgivably, the process leading up to the naming, this week, of the winning Bayside development partner has been shrouded in secrecy. All players – including all consultants – have been required by Waterfront Toronto to sign confidentiality agreements, provoking secret, hushed exchanges of information. Officially, I don’t know anything.

Bayside is the largest residential development to plant itself on Toronto’s waterfront in decades. But, though it spreads over publicly owned land, none of its new residential designs have been seen or debated by the public. Keeping the Toronto waterfront as a secret harboured by only a very few is an old idea that smacks of Toronto in the 1980s. Definitely not flou, just tragically, dangerously passé.

AoD
 
Animation

I must say that was a great animation provided. Has anyone heard of Arcestra - the firm that seems responsible for it.
 
Just how would the city designate it a lower rent district? I agree with your previous post, regarding adding to the number of units by decreasing frontage. This area though will be the same as Bremner Blvd and QQ. Empty stores. The only difference is that Bonnycastle place might up the bar by having two floors of empty retail space vs. the usual one.

Yesterday at the Planning and growth committee developers were asking that the requirement to retain ground floor commercial space be removed, and tax rebates were deemed necessary to build retail space on Queen St. West. If you can't build it on Queen West, it will not be viable here.

Tell me something, are tax rates different throughout the city? Why do strip malls, with low end shops work and not face problems, or say stores in and around NYCC that pop up in the bottom of condos, and these are typically mom and pop Asian shops.

I'm also curious, you seem really passionate about the whole tax issue and the majority if not all of your 1000+ posts are about just this, do you live in the 416 or 905 if you don't mind me asking? At first, I reached the conclusion that to you this is why Toronto is struggling and you want it to change ... as, maybe, you live here, and want better for the city. But seeing how all your posts on this site are about this issue, and for the most part nothing else, I think you work in the field and deal with this everyday, mind if I ask what area you work in as well, development / planning?
 
There's been nothing concrete less adding more retail, shrinking the store frontage, reorienting on the water, and adding some cultural attraction. All of which I've addressed ... anyway, I'll move on.

If by addressed you mean misinterpreted people, spat out some muddled thoughts, and then dismissed a laundry list, multiple posts long, of options and tweaks as not describing one of many alternate visions that have proven to have a better shot at success.
 
If I missed one by all means let me know ... and yes I've read over the posts, a few times ... let me be clear, this is no blue print for success, I don't think such thing exists, my point is I do not see this as doomed to fail, there is not a single large design flaw with the site plan that'll compromise it's chances of succeeding ... also, succeeding is very arbitrary, I'm not sure it'd be easy to describe what a successful neighborhood is exactly ... some would argue the danforth, while great, lacks density and commerical usage - but maybe that's why love it ... similar arguments can be made about any single neighborhood.

Anyway, as I said above, I'm moving on, please so the same, as we're clearly not going to agree here ... as usual.
 
Depends what he means ... the whole waterfront project ... that's probably right, if not even a little optimistic ... this little batch of land ... nah, there are probably only 3-5 condos max and 2 office buildings which I'm betting will built spec and sit empty for a while :)
 
^^^

As much as I'd love a film museum, I think a Toronto history museum should be a higher priority. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll get one any time soon (much like your sense of humour).

Laughing is for children.

A "Toronto museum" might be interesting for Torontonians, but for tourists?
 
Tell me something, are tax rates different throughout the city? Why do strip malls, with low end shops work and not face problems, or say stores in and around NYCC that pop up in the bottom of condos, and these are typically mom and pop Asian shops.

The commercial rates are the same across the city. What is different is what percentage of the full assessment value they pay. Instead of paying the full tax amount (mill rate * assessment value), properties had what is called capping protection. Basically this meant that since 1998 the move to full CVA was capped to 5% per year. New properties get taxed at the full rate. This is why in Toronto you find most areas have a difficult time supporting new retail and commercial space. The tax rates are to high. Developers are tired of being forced to replace commercial floor space when commercial buildings are converted into condos, as the tax burden makes them unprofitable.

By the year 2015 all properties in Toronto will be taxed at the full CVA rate. With few exceptions, most retail strips/streets in Toronto will be under huge pressure to convert to non commercial use. This will prove to be a disaster to the city's finances. The Duke's example that I like to point out is indicative. Despite being on one of the most viable retail streets in Toronto, the taxes are a major impediment to the development of retail/commercial space. Even the calculations the city used in its reports underpaly the potenital impact.

The old building was paying property tax of (commercial portion) $8,671 per year, based on a 2008 CVA assessment of $654,975. This amount was only 32.6% of the full tax rate, as it was protected by a cap. Unprotected the tax would climb to $ 26,598 per year. The cap was set to diminish over the years until 2016 when all properties in Toronto would be taxes at the full CVA rate. Now, with the building destroyed, any new building will face paying taxes at the full CVA rate. As such the viability of the commercial space is in question.

Councillor Adam Vaughan has been working diligently to help address the difficulties in the redevelopment of these properties. This is what he found….

†Through the process of working with the six property owners of these buildings in the aftermath of the fire, I have discovered that any new buildings constructed on the fire site would pay property taxes at the full CVA rate, and would be ineligible for capping protection. The reality of the significant tax increases facing these property owners threatens the viability of redeveloping these properties with street-related commercial uses. The longer the fire site remains vacant, the more severe the social and economic impacts facing Queen West and the broader neighbourhood become. This is why it is in the City’s interest to facilitate a timely and appropriate replacement of the lost fabric of this street. â€

Think about this. It is not viable to rebuild commercial space on Queen West, on land that is already owned. If the redevelopment of these properties had included the need to purchase the land also, it would have only compounded the problem and made it even more un-viable. The added cherry on top is that the calculation of the new tax burden were based on the 2008 MPAC assessments. In the case of Dukes cycle (623-625 Queen St. West) it was woefully under-assessed. The 2008 assessment has these properties valued at $ 654,975.00. As someone who is very familiar with the area, this assessment does not reflect the market. The Cameron house, a much smaller building of similar age is currently listed for more than 2 million. In light of this it is fair to say that being un-viable at a full CVA tax rate of $ 26,598 per year, think about what might happen with a more realistic assessment. If the commercial portion of the assessment was updated to a more realistic 1.5 million, the taxes would rise to more than $60,000 per year.


What makes anyone believe that Bayside will be able to support the retail/commercial developments proposed. Look to Bremner Blvd. to see what to expect. Bonnycastle St. is going to be two floors of empty retail as opposed to the Toronto norm of one.
 

Back
Top