Toronto CityPlace Puente de Luz Bridge | ?m | ?s | Concord Adex | Francisco Gazitua

interchange42 said:
At the latest Mouth of the Creek Park public consultation earlier this evening, Adam Vaughan stated that his office is exploring having some Section 37 money from the next CityPlace zoning amendment applications pay for the construction of stairs at the landing of the bridge to make access easier from the east.

42
Click to expand...

This just makes me laugh.
 
Why?

42
 
But there's the rub. The developer was not charged with building stairs. They had to construct an accessible bridge using the specific amount of money specified in the S.37 clause of their rezoning agreement. The ramps ensure that the bridge meets the building code and AODA's minimum accessibility standards - something which stairs wouldn't have. Unless they're feeling benevolent and charitable, Concord Adex is under no obligation to pay for anything more.
 
Ramako said:
It seems a little absurd that it wasn't designed with stairs in the first place, and that rather than the developer charged with building it paying for these stairs, the community is forced to scrounge up s. 37 money from other developers.
Click to expand...

It almost assuredly was, they just weren't constructed in the first phase (remember, they only had to meet minimum accessibility standards, not make things convenient).
 
ChesterCopperpot said:
Saw this tonight when out walking the dog - art or just trash?

6eq5b9.jpg
Click to expand...


lighting is photoshopped
 
ProjectEnd said:
But there's the rub. The developer was not charged with building stairs. They had to construct an accessible bridge using the specific amount of money specified in the S.37 clause of their rezoning agreement. The ramps ensure that the bridge meets the building code and AODA's minimum accessibility standards - something which stairs wouldn't have. Unless they're feeling benevolent and charitable, Concord Adex is under no obligation to pay for anything more.
Click to expand...

Than the absurdity is on the part of the city for not demanding something slightly better than meeting minimum standards from the outset. I'm not really interesting in assigning blame, but the situation does indeed seem laughable.
 
Ramako said:
Than the absurdity is on the part of the city for not demanding something slightly better than meeting minimum standards from the outset. I'm not really interesting in assigning blame, but the situation does indeed seem laughable.
Click to expand...

Not that I don't agree with you in principle, but how do you make that sort of 'demand' legally binding? Recall what happened at 365 Church - the community demanded 'more' but when pressed, was unable to quantify exactly 'how much,' or qualify 'why.' This lack of a hard number and evidence to back it up caused the community to lose everything.

As I'm sure you know, Sec. 37 funds are an exact amount which is dictated by a formula. The bridge cost is also an exact amount dictated by the design, engineering and construction fees. If one doesn't cover the other, the city does not have the ability to 'demand' that the developer pay more - and nor should they. To me it's much less 'absurd' than 'fair.'
 
Essentially the bridge already cost quite a bit more to build than Concord was required through S. 37 agreements to pay. When the agreements are worked out, the amounts developers have to spend are set. Concord went beyond that to make sure there was a good, workable bridge. I can't fault them on not going even further beyond budget to add stairs that were never required. I'm happy that those stairs will likely be added a couple of years from now based on agreements that are currently being worked out.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Essentially the bridge already cost quite a bit more to build than Concord was required through S. 37 agreements to pay. When the agreements are worked out, the amounts developers have to spend are set. Concord went beyond that to make sure there was a good, workable bridge. I can't fault them on not going even further beyond budget to add stairs that were never required. I'm happy that those stairs will likely be added a couple of years from now based on agreements that are currently being worked out.

42
Click to expand...

Come on. I fault them. Really, how much more could one set of stairs cost? $10,000? $20,000 max? from a developer making millions upon millions? It's practically a rounding error.
 
$30,000 would get you stairs on both sides of the bridge similar to the steps at the Spadina Bridge in Cityplace
 
interchange42 said:
At the latest Mouth of the Creek Park public consultation earlier this evening, Adam Vaughan stated that his office is exploring having some Section 37 money from the next CityPlace zoning amendment applications pay for the construction of stairs at the landing of the bridge to make access easier from the east.

42
Click to expand...

Stairs from the end of the ramp to the new park, or something else?
 
greenleaf said:
Come on. I fault them. Really, how much more could one set of stairs cost? $10,000? $20,000 max? from a developer making millions upon millions? It's practically a rounding error.
Click to expand...

I'll reiterate. How do you write that into law? "If this thing costs more than we project, the City reserves the right to demand more." ? City building doesn't work that way. Things like Sec.37 are precise and legally binding.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top