UrbanAffair
Senior Member
Well deserved. Very very cool design. My favourite building in that batch of highrises that entered market around that time. (Eau de Soleil also quite interesting)
Toronto Massey Tower Condos | 206.95m | 60s | MOD Developments | Hariri Pontarini
Well deserved. Very very cool design. My favourite building in that batch of highrises that entered market around that time. (Eau de Soleil also quite interesting)
TonyV
Senior Member
These awards are well deserved. Again I say that this is my favourite current project. It tackles very aggressively the issue of underused and abandoned sections of Yonge in a creative way, and it puts back into use Toronto's most important antique, Massey Hall.
All of this speaks well of us as a city. Congratulations, MOD Developments.
All of this speaks well of us as a city. Congratulations, MOD Developments.
androiduk
Senior Member
Just for the record, this sign recently went up on site.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
New final report, from the May 14 TEYCC:
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-58026.pdf
The s37 agreement towards the end of the PDF is an interesting read.
AoD
http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-58026.pdf
The s37 agreement towards the end of the PDF is an interesting read.
AoD
Xray_Crystal_Junkie
Senior Member
A million for streetscape improvements, 1.3 million for public art, and donation of land to Massey Hall. Seem to have extracted quite a bit.
(Yes I realize the public art bit is a standard for all projects)
(Yes I realize the public art bit is a standard for all projects)
metroTO
Active Member
It's a political move to help get this 60-storey condo approved.
All condo developments should be making bigger contributions to the city as their developments adds a huge strain on local infrastructure such as utilities and transit.
Public art is a common contribution by developers as it adds interest and value to their own building, it's a more self serving contribution than anything else.
I think there should be specific Section 37 contributions made towards improving our transit system and water/hydro/sewage systems, which seems to be the most in need.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
by law a development must contribute 1% of their construction budget to public art, thus the "popularity" of it.
Peepers
Banned
I think it is a mistake to mandate that a set amount of money - usually in the Millions - be devoted to public art. It's not because I am against art per se. The problem as I see it is art is not a commodity so it is impossible to know if the city is getting value for it's money. For instance, you can't just walk into a store and say "I'll take $1.3 Million in art".
For this project $1.3 Million has been allocated for public art. Just how do they go about spending that money? Who gets that big juicy commission? What is particularly bothersome in this instance is the fact that the local Councillor owns a contemporary art gallery. This raises for me serious concerns about conflicts of interest! How can we be sure that this lucrative $1.3 Million commission isn't going to an artist connected to the local Councillor? I'm not suggesting for a second that this is happening or that it ever would happen but it is something for all of us to be aware of!
The CBC actually has a very interesting article on the subject of Section 37. It explains how the process is suppose to work and how it is being abused by certain downtown Councillors.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2013/04/25/toronto-section-37.html
What jumped out of the article for me was the following:
So $52 Million is just sitting in a bank somewhere waiting on the local Councillor to get around to spending it on their pet project when at the same time we have funding shortfalls for needed infrastructure and affordable housing projects. Think for example how far that $52 Million could go in bringing sub-standard TCHC units up to suitable levels? Why hasn't this money been spent? Is it being saved up to use as a war-chest in the next election?
Last edited:
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
I think it's pretty safe to say that art components are designed, assembled and installed based on the amount of money allocated with the artist (or designer) being paid to commission the piece.
As for Section 37 benefits there could be more community consultation and transparency. If you read a final Staff Report you'll see that Section 37 funds are clearly outlined, and that's where the money that was negotiated should be spent. $52 million isn't just "sitting in a bank" for no good reason and shouldn't be spent on projects for which it was not intended. Once a project is completed and money transferred to the City it goes back into the community in various forms including road, park improvements, community centres and such which can't be started the next day or the next month. Take a look at NPS and see how a project moves that is run by the City and you'll understand why $52 million hasn't yet been spent.
As for Section 37 benefits there could be more community consultation and transparency. If you read a final Staff Report you'll see that Section 37 funds are clearly outlined, and that's where the money that was negotiated should be spent. $52 million isn't just "sitting in a bank" for no good reason and shouldn't be spent on projects for which it was not intended. Once a project is completed and money transferred to the City it goes back into the community in various forms including road, park improvements, community centres and such which can't be started the next day or the next month. Take a look at NPS and see how a project moves that is run by the City and you'll understand why $52 million hasn't yet been spent.
HDLtd
New Member
Hence the requirement to pay development charges. Development charges average around $10,000 per unit in a condo, therefore if this condo has 500 units it would contribute $5,000,000 to growth related infrastructure costs. The City and the development industry are fighting over a proposed doubling of development charges over the next 5 years. This number does not include education charges or park levies, which are significant as well. Further to that, the new tax base that all of the new, registered condos represent will further help fund city services and infrastructure improvement.
It's sad to see developers derided so in the mainstream media when in fact they are the goose laying the golden egg in the city. And the city seems to be trying to do everything they can to kill it.
Lenser
Senior Member
Actually, this happens all the time. High-end interior designers have clients with deep pockets. They stipulate what they're willing to spend and often leave it up to the designer to do the shopping for them. Art can be a pretty bankable investment, but it can be tricky - better if it's a proven commodity with sticking power - meaning, often enough, that the artist is widely recognized having figured prominently in certain movements/periods. It also helps if the artist is dead as that means there's a finite number of works in the market at any given time and that tends to keep prices up. Yeah, contemporary art often succumbs to the fickle vicissitudes of aesthetic trends of the day, but if you're a discerning collector art can indeed be a very bankable commodity.
Yep. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if there were connections behind the scenes. This kind of cronyism goes on in the building trade all the time. Has anyone been following the ever-unraveling development scandals in Quebec, which has implicated lots of politicians and bureaucrats who ought to know better but couldn't resist the siren song of money and all sorts of perks? Does anyone refuse to believe the same sorts of back-room, wink-wink dealmaking never happens in this province, in this town? I think it's always been about who you know, how well you're connected. With public money, with private money. I'm not condoning it, mind you.
Section 37 is perhaps good idea in theory but in practise it's become a monster. I believe developers should be working in conjunction with the city but the problem seems to be that there's no arms-length mechanism to monitor development deals - and rein in the most egregious abuses. It's appears to have taken on a life of its own.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
For crying out loud, there is an approval process for public art component from new development, with selection by jury of which ward representatives are of a tiny minority (and they have to have a background in art) - take this example from the Maple Leaf Square as an example:
www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2008/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-9500.pdf
And I have a feeling the local councillor in question is probably more familiar with Conflict of Interest issues than the one sitting on the mayor's chair. At least she isn't the one who told the court that she learned everything from daddy (and I haven't even gotten to the bit about calling the city manager to chat about redoing the street where the family business sits on). Where's the outrage?
If it was a war chest for the next election, it's funny how much money is still banked. As I recall, there had been quite a few elections now. s37 monies tend to be committed to very specific items that you can't just pull out and use for other purposes - perhaps one reason the money isn't spent is because no one controlling the budget is willing to commit to an item that there isn't sufficient funding yet for?
AoD
Last edited:
Uncle Teddy
Senior Member
I agree the developers seem to be derided more than they should be in the media. But to say the city is doing everything they can to kill them is ridiculous. Developers have gotten very rich in recent years so whatever the city is doing is certainly not impacting them in a negative manner.
HDLtd
New Member
In retrospect, I may have used more forceful words than necessary. Real estate development is a business, and businesses are created to make profit. Some developers are better at it than others, and there probably isn't as much of a return in it as you would expect considering the amounts of up front capital that is required. To make a long story short, the city finds it easier politically to try to offload costs onto development which should be funded through property tax increases. And then the city decries that the costs of new homes continue to climb into the stratosphere and are made unaffordable for 'young families who want to stay downtown' or whomever is the demographic of the moment, and circle the blame back to greedy developers.
johnwood
Active Member
i used to love this project but then i saw how crappy the north side of the building looked in the toronto star and now i couldn't care less if this building gets built.