Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[44 North]

Why is this a bullshit lawsuit? The Hybrid option basically fucks over the plan for their property by taking 2 acres from them and compromising another 2 acres (out of a total of 14 acres). They've been working with Waterfront Toronto and The City for years to develop this property, so they put effort into that, and then all of a sudden First Gulf invents the Hybrid, gets Tory onboard, and 3C could very well lose their property.

I'd say that their anger is valid. Would you be happy if that happened to you? I doubt it.

Have they worked with WaterfronToronto? Didn't they side with Doug Ford / BuildTO / TPLC to overthrow WaterfrontTO (i.e - the 5star hotel, ferris wheel, monorail plan)?

I recall writing this a few months back, but I do believe the City's snubbing of the 3C property and essentially leapfrogging over to the Unilever site is some kind of retribution for their siding with the Fords. When looking at the order of waterfront development, it'd make sense that 3C would be next for development. But we've heard almost nothing about the site in years. Whereas Unilever, which isn't even on the water, requires an (unfunded) $Billion for river naturalization in order to be rezoned for development, and basically came out of the blue - has become the focus of attention. And now the City wants to put a on/offramp on the 3C property? Something doesn't seem right.

 

[cplchanb]

Why is this a bullshit lawsuit? The Hybrid option basically fucks over the plan for their property by taking 2 acres from them and compromising another 2 acres (out of a total of 14 acres). They've been working with Waterfront Toronto and The City for years to develop this property, so they put effort into that, and then all of a sudden First Gulf invents the Hybrid, gets Tory onboard, and 3C could very well lose their property.

I'd say that their anger is valid. Would you be happy if that happened to you? I doubt it.

regardless these plans are still subject to final approval by the city to change zoning and allow for construction. The city has full entitlement to change their minds (not that I would approve to begin) if they havent legally signed the authorization to permit. Developers can kick and whine all they want but unless they can get councillors on their side to influence the city council to make a change, they can't sue the city for a theoretical proposal that was denied.

 

[wopchop]

Have they worked with WaterfronToronto? Didn't they side with Doug Ford / BuildTO / TPLC to overthrow WaterfrontTO (i.e - the 5star hotel, ferris wheel, monorail plan)?

Can't remember. I know that initially they were working with them, as their property falls within the precinct plan being overseen by WaterfrontTO. This article from the Globe and Mail claims that they were close to an agreement with the City and WaterfrontTO.

I recall writing this a few months back, but I do believe the City's snubbing of the 3C property and essentially leapfrogging over to the Unilever site is some kind of retribution for their siding with the Fords. When looking at the order of waterfront development, it'd make sense that 3C would be next for development. But we've heard almost nothing about the site in years. Whereas Unilever, which isn't even on the water, requires an (unfunded) $Billion for river naturalization in order to be rezoned for development, and basically came out of the blue - has become the focus of attention. And now the City wants to put a on/offramp on the 3C property? Something doesn't seem right.

It's a scandal waiting to happen. First Gulf proposes the Hybrid Solution, which will assist in developing their property, at the expense of a competitor. Somehow they convince the Mayor and his administration to endorse it. When the lawsuit happens, the court, and the integrity commissioner will be asking questions about that.

regardless these plans are still subject to final approval by the city to change zoning and allow for construction. The city has full entitlement to change their minds (not that I would approve to begin) if they havent legally signed the authorization to permit. Developers can kick and whine all they want but unless they can get councillors on their side to influence the city council to make a change, they can't sue the city for a theoretical proposal that was denied.

If they've been working with the City and WaterfrontTO for a while (as they claim), towards the stated goal of developing this land, and have committed resources towards it, then yes, they can sue the city, as The City has encouraged them and led them to believe that redevelopment of their property was desirable and possible.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Have they worked with WaterfronToronto? Didn't they side with Doug Ford / BuildTO / TPLC to overthrow WaterfrontTO (i.e - the 5star hotel, ferris wheel, monorail plan)?

That's a really, really funny way to punish the 3C developer for supposedly siding with RoDoFo against WT (couldn't find any clear evidence of THAT), considering WT's preference for this stretch of the Gardiner.

It's a scandal waiting to happen. First Gulf proposes the Hybrid Solution, which will assist in developing their property, at the expense of a competitor. Somehow they convince the Mayor and his administration to endorse it. When the lawsuit happens, the court, and the integrity commissioner will be asking questions about that.

Not to mention that, but JT practically tailored his ST plans for the First Gulf site as well. Now, where are the studies showing the impact of THAT development on congestion, since he is so concerned about it?

re: 3C plans

I think their plans assumes the Gardiner stays - at issue are the new ramps which came out of nowhere. That's what will be ditched in a compromise, in which case the "Hybrid" loses its' legs and became a snake that it is.

AoD

 

[wopchop]

re: 3C plans

I think their plans assumes the Gardiner stays - at issue are the new ramps which came out of nowhere. That's what will be ditched in a compromise, in which case the "Hybrid" loses its' legs and became a snake that it is.

AoD

Yes, see below (from link)

The issue, as I understand, is not the Gardiner staying up, it is as you say. The new ramps will cut right through the property of the 3C Consortium.

EDIT:

For reference, here is a map from Get Toronto Moving;

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I don't expect the council vote to be the end of the story though, especially if Tory wins. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see 3C launch a lawsuit. The longer this draws out the better it is for the boulevard plan.

Who is 3C?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Well, apparently money grows on trees for this administration - I guess that's where the 2% TTC funding cut will be going to.

AoD

I don't think I've seen an administration supporting spending so much money on such useless projects so early into their term. I mean, we have $3.6 to $4.1 Billion for the Scarborugh Subway, another $3 Billion for SmartTrack and now another $1 Billion for Gardiner in the last 6 months. But when it comes to the TCHC backlog or improving the TTC budget, there's no money available.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Tory has the votes on council to get his way.

We're stuck with a rather poor council, with most committees stacked with either Tory loyalists or nutjobs who will mostly go with Tory's agenda, Uber notwithstanding.

Tory is early in his tenure and Toronto voted for him. The freak Rob Ford got council to cancel FUNDED transit projects in his first year. I expect that, in every other council ever, the Mayor stacked the committees and got to run the agenda for at least his or her first year.

I hope he loses this and takes the loss as a lesson. But, I believe he'll win as a few undecideds swing to his side, through lobbying or favours or the fact that they're not really undecided, just not telling anyone their voting intentions.

My point was mostly that I'd like to see something built and the soap plant site opened up sooner rather than later -- I think the hybrid is stupid, but I think another 5 years of wrangling on this project is not worth it.

What I'd really like to see, though, is the federal election and Pan Am games' successes to spur the re-funding of Waterfront Toronto. They have so many fabulous projects in the pipeline, I'd trade a loss on this for funding the Don Mouth revitalization that'll unlock the Portlands in a heartbeat.

 

[wopchop]

Who is 3C?

3C is a Consortium made of Cityzen, Castlepoint, and Continental Ventures (out of NYC). They own about 14 acres at Cherry & Lakeshore.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

How many other Torontonians have been misled by this 'Hybrid' name? - Matt Elliot

This is just appalling. I mean, seriously? What has she been doing since she was elected?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This is just appalling. I mean, seriously? What has she been doing since she was elected?

I just love how she feign concern for the pedestrians - perhaps they should ask area residents whether they wanted the expressway up?

AoD

 

[nfitz]

This is just appalling. I mean, seriously? What has she been doing since she was elected?

Where was Liz West elected? I'd have thought she'd have given up after bombing in Toronto.

 

[DarnDirtyApe]

The amount of FUD and misconstruing of stats on both sides is appalling. I just read Matt's post on "The Road to Progress" and it seems that Joe Mihevc is spinning hard himself. Using the fallacious 100 year stats and ignoring the "maintain" option to imply that removing the highway is far cheaper than the other options, saying that we can build the Waterfront East LRT with the "savings" and ignoring that those savings are all far in the future, focusing solely on the AM rush hour downtown commuters and ignoring the rest, and so on. All because they want to create an "urban high quality place" in this one specific area of the city that happens to host an expressway.

Meanwhile he and other remove proponents want to funnel cars onto Richmond and Adelaide and through existing neighbourhoods...

 

[Paolo]

i still say we demolish the gardner

 

[CDL.TO]

Although we'll never reach perfect consensus, I think that there really is an opportunity here to create a new, actual hybrid option.

If we could have the Gardiner come down to ground level east of Jarvis, rather than west, and consolidate the two Cherry street intersections into one we'd still be making serious improvements to this area while reducing the potential "time added" by the full boulevard option.

Left turns onto Jarvis are going to be seriously busy as currently planned.