nfitz
Superstar
The initial information that was released, indicated changes to the entire flooding plan, and therefore changes up to West Donlands. Don't let them distract you with the nut under the other shell.
Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto
EMP1729
Active Member
I don't think the Doug Ford actually has a coherent plan. He loves to muse about these things, make soundbites, give grand visions, and suggest that it is all possible with private funding. Remember his bury the Gardiner, and have a tunnel with multiple levels for road and rail? And sell the land to private developers so that they can pay for it? How technically (or even commercially) feasible is that? It isn't.
Riverdale Rink Rat
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2008
- Messages
- 2,775
- Reaction score
- 272
- Location
- Back to East York... Alas!
Seriously, Marko -- billions? Without any offsetting government spending? I know you're trying to be optimistic/open-minded, but c'mon.
Gavin
Active Member
gristle
Senior Member
Doug Ford likes to obfuscate and waste time with his musings. The fact of the matter is that he and his brother can do great damage to this project. There is no private money available to do the things he fantasizes about. He likely wants to just sell the land to private developers to do whatever. That does not indicate anything of quality for the residents of the city. His interest is in getting rid of the land. He has zero interest in building anything long term.
The result of his "plan" is most likely another Concord Adex phase and bunch of big box stores.
The result of his "plan" is most likely another Concord Adex phase and bunch of big box stores.
StCatharinesCitizen
New Member
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.
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;-)
Gosh. Golly. Gee whiz.
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.
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)
Seeing as I am currently attending the Graduate School of Urban Planning and Design at Harvard University, I would consider myself well qualified. Also that I visit Toronto often, I know the general scheme of the area.
Marko
Active Member
Aside from eventual tax revenues, there are hundreds of acres in play here. What value would you put on the land?
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
Could you give us the names some of your professors? I feel like they might take issue with your enthusiasm for the public spaces offered by Fallsview Casino.
CanadianNational
Senior Member
This is wishful thinking. The Portlands redevelopments have been accelerated, steadily and comprehensively - by the Waterfront Toronto Corporation. It is their efforts (and our dollars) that has made the area attractive to private business again. This political, business and pragmatic (infrastructure) stability is what has attracted the major public-private partnerships under the city's aegis that will guarantee continued income for Toronto for a long time hence.
It looks like the Fords want to hurry developments on a key piece of city land by selling it off. Income from it out of city hands, afterwards, will be low. If encouraging startup corporate tax breaks are given, income from it will be even lower.
Subtract from that total the money that will be eaten up likely paying down private infrastructure costs (mass flood protection, mass decontamination, sewage, draining, grading, hydro, roads, etc.) or interest on those costs. Also subtract a variable private profit margin divorced from public scrutiny.
There is no proof yet that such a development will encourage growth in the surrounding portlands. Depending on it's composition and skill, it may hinder it.
In a city that has said it cannot afford to keep it's liberries open, there is no reason to think that any income generated from selling once-off city-available land in the Portlands will remain or be channeled back into the nearby area.
With the city setting itself up against the provincial and federal government, there is no reason to expect why these two levels of government may not have their own reasons for shutting out the city in the remainder of their deals with the portlands. They may decide to keep the land for themselves, and short of closing down the Waterfront Corporation, simply restrict it's duties to finish up what has been started along Queen's Quay.
In that case, the remaining Portlands may be largely out of city jurisdiction, and under Provincial and Federal control - which may leave them open to any number of uses, including industrial. In this case, the lands may continue to sit fallow for decades, as there may not be the financial need nor the political will to attempt their regeneration. Needless to say, in this scenario, there will be no income at all from them for the city, and little chance of the city obtaining them for it's own use.
Last edited:
Rowe
Active Member
This proposal can be worrying.. but I think its good to look at some of the deeper things about the waterfront:
(1) WT has built a good standard of design. Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Common are a great precedence to have on the waterfront. People bring life to those projects.
(2) CNE and Ontario Place's future is currently being debated. The sale could generate money for more waterfront development.
(3) Pan Am Games are starting to catch up. Planning takes time; but I'm sure Toronto wants to make a good portion of the waterfront look livable.
(4) Developers care about money and reputation. They aren't unaware of the value of waterfront property (same with the Fords, as silly as they can be). CityPlace gets mixed reviews but its not some horrible blight on the waterfront.
(5) I'm pretty sure what the Portlands "idea" from Ford will be more like the Portsmouth, UK waterfront development (which was a huge outdoor outlet mall, tower and some "showy" towers).
If there is billions to be made here.. billions are going to need to be spent.
However, like everyone else.. lets see a site plan soon!
(1) WT has built a good standard of design. Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Common are a great precedence to have on the waterfront. People bring life to those projects.
(2) CNE and Ontario Place's future is currently being debated. The sale could generate money for more waterfront development.
(3) Pan Am Games are starting to catch up. Planning takes time; but I'm sure Toronto wants to make a good portion of the waterfront look livable.
(4) Developers care about money and reputation. They aren't unaware of the value of waterfront property (same with the Fords, as silly as they can be). CityPlace gets mixed reviews but its not some horrible blight on the waterfront.
(5) I'm pretty sure what the Portlands "idea" from Ford will be more like the Portsmouth, UK waterfront development (which was a huge outdoor outlet mall, tower and some "showy" towers).
If there is billions to be made here.. billions are going to need to be spent.
However, like everyone else.. lets see a site plan soon!
Last edited:
jje1000
Senior Member
Link to your portfolio or it didn't happen.
And knowing the general scheme of the area does not mean that you know a specific neighbourhood well.
golodhendil
Active Member
Seeing as we don't have a "school of urban planning", I'd say you just pulled that one out. Otherwise judging from how you keep throwing out words like "Leftist" and "liberals", you must hate your life on the Left Bank of the Charles.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Not that I support anything that CambridgeCitizen, uh, I mean StCatherinesCitizen has said, but there is a department within the GSD which bears that name.
But even if he does attend that institution, what adma points out is still relevant since all that would change would be his title from the 'Thomas Kinkdale of Urban Planning' to the 'Harvard-educated Thomas Kinkdale of Urban Planning.' In other words, on a forum where the substance of ones' post speaks far more than the accreditation of the poster, the possibility that he attends an Ivy League school means bupkis when considered in the context of what he's already said.
adma
Superstar
Then again, it could say something about the realm of urban planning as opposed to that of mere architecture and design; i.e. it's more technocratic and dispassionate by nature--more "engineering-like", perhaps, and less martyr to style snobs and the like. And whatever one can say about Casino Niagara as architecture (and in the end, I am quite accepting of it in and of itself; it fits the genius loci, and I'm not being sarcastic--what's Niagara without the unabashedly over-the-top kitsch?), it is an impressive, or at least very thoroughly "thought out", feat of urban planning, more so than anything commercial-tourist-geared in NF-Ont history. As superscaled Steve Wynn-era feats of Disneyesque imagineering go, it's...not bad. You can definitely tell that "urban planners wuz here": planners who are uncynically honest about its being kitsch because, well, "that's what it needs to be".
Of course, it would help if StCatharinesCitizen were able to describe and defend it in such terms, rather than left-liberal-bash or fall back on oh-wow superlative-larded yokel-hucksterisms like terming it "beautiful" or a gem almost equal to the Falls itself. That is: if you're attending Harvard, speak like a Harvardian, not like a graduate of the Dr. Nick Riviera School of Urban Planning.
Oh, and incidentally, when it comes to genius loci, just as Casino Niagara suits the context, so would a Thomas Kinkade supergallery. Really: even I, as a hypothetical "ich bin ein Niagara Falls-er", would welcome it--it suits that particular kind of tourist marketplace. But when it comes to Toronto, perhaps as some Doug Ford equivalent to Nate Phillips/Phil Givens-era Toronto "snagging" a world-class Henry Moore collection, it's laughable...
Of course, it would help if StCatharinesCitizen were able to describe and defend it in such terms, rather than left-liberal-bash or fall back on oh-wow superlative-larded yokel-hucksterisms like terming it "beautiful" or a gem almost equal to the Falls itself. That is: if you're attending Harvard, speak like a Harvardian, not like a graduate of the Dr. Nick Riviera School of Urban Planning.
Oh, and incidentally, when it comes to genius loci, just as Casino Niagara suits the context, so would a Thomas Kinkade supergallery. Really: even I, as a hypothetical "ich bin ein Niagara Falls-er", would welcome it--it suits that particular kind of tourist marketplace. But when it comes to Toronto, perhaps as some Doug Ford equivalent to Nate Phillips/Phil Givens-era Toronto "snagging" a world-class Henry Moore collection, it's laughable...
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Not with a fire sale it can't. Waterfront Toronto needs to get the maximum value out of every property it sells. With West Don Lands flood protection, Sherbourne Commons, and Sugar Beach complete there is now value in the surrounding lands which can be sold to developers to recoup the costs of decontaminating, building parks, and building infrastructure. A mass quick sale of the port lands is selling the property at its lowest value.
As I said in an unrelated thread, the plan to put things off 10 to 20 years has nothing to do with what Waterfront Toronto's desires. They have to deal with market reality and realistically you can't turn a thousand acres of land into an urban environment in less than that. Cityplace sold units as fast as it could on the railway lands they controlled and it has been about 12 years and they aren't done yet. The land Cityplace sits on is already served by transit, is not heavily contaminated, not in the floodplain, and close to existing sewer and water connections. How do you sell ten times that much office, residential, and retail space onto the market in less than 10 years and get a return on your investment? Where are the people and businesses going to come from to fill that space so quickly?
Is a one storey mall a great use of downtown land? What does an indoor mall benefit from being near water? In London the ferris wheel is $50 to ride 30 minutes and where it is located you have the benefit of seeing many of London's sites from the highest vantage point. In Toronto this ferris wheel would give you a birds eye view of water and a mall with most of the city's sites obscured by tall buildings. To actually see the sites you need to go up the CN Tower. What is the synergy between a mall and a ferris wheel, and the waterfront? I get the floating hotel and that seems like the rare good idea in the plan as it is actually related to a waterfront, and the port.