Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[Skeezix]

Hectare after hectare of contaminated floodplain.

Of course what they're doing is better than the underutilized wasteland it was before.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It's a bit like someone taking away the neighbourhood you knew, bleaching and sanitizing the real culture out of it, and then selling the plastic wrapped result back to you as something superior, as "it's all the rage you know".

I'm not impressed. Milton Keynes started the same way, albeit it was greenfield. Roundabouts to nowhere...Oh my Droogies...

There was nothing but a marsh at the spot for the longest time, this is merely bringing a hint of what was back while floodproofing the area for further use. It's time to embrace what will be.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

There was nothing but a marsh at the spot for the longest time, this is merely bringing a hint of what was back while floodproofing the area for further use. It's time to embrace what will be.

AoD

Clarification: In the Canary District. Make no mistake, it was a contaminated cesspool, but to offer an analogy, many are now questioning whether what's been done is what should have been done, and I'm one of them. I see Wallace Avenue studios are in the news again.
https://www.thestar.com/entertainme...urge-reluctant-artists-from-the-west-end.html
I'm now closely familiar with the Sterling Avenue situation, and in the name of progress, and an 'art museum' many excellent artisans are being turfed, but getting back to the Canary District:

Olympic afterlife: the real legacy of the London Games for Stratford
With construction limiting public services and investors cashing in on ‘the Olympic effect’, Stratford’s residents are wondering whether hosting the Games was really worth it
Stratford’s Olympics legacy: boon or bust? Share your experiences

[...]
Like the rest of Stratford, though, the old shopping centre was at the mercy of the gods of Olympus – and it clearly didn’t fit with the image Newham council wanted to project to the world. As the Games approached, the council tried to hide the building behind a particularly egregious piece of public art: a shoal of iridescent lozenges on sticks. These concealed nothing, merely added a citrusy top-note to the dog’s dinner of the ring road.

A more substantial threat came from Westfield, the gigantic mall and “gateway to the Games”, which had opened shortly before I moved to the area. I was sceptical about its boring shops and the threat they posed to local businesses. Above all, I was repulsed by the cacophonous architecture of the place, and the fake public space inside. But eventually I learned to love Westfield, too, for the enormous relief of no longer having to go to Oxford street for shopping – and for the people-watching opportunities it afforded. Thankfully, it also turned out to do the old shopping centre little harm – footfall has if anything increased there, thanks to Stratford’s transformation into a shopping “destination”.

If, however, I was charmed by Stratford and seduced by Westfield, there was one big unavoidable blot on my new home’s escutcheon: the Olympics. It wasn’t that I was outraged by the abuse of the existing landscape. The psycho-geographer’s romance of the Lea valley was never high on my agenda – I like post-industrial wastelands as much as the next man, but to leave a huge tranche of inner-city land unoccupied in the middle of a housing shortage is stupid. My problem was more with what would be built on it, and for whom. [...continues at length...]

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/aug/08/london-olympic-games-legacy-stratford

Canary in the Goldmine?

That was two years ago, even more questions are now being asked. More later.

 

[DSCToronto]

It's a bit like someone taking away the neighbourhood you knew, bleaching and sanitizing the real culture out of it, and then selling the plastic wrapped result back to you as something superior, as "it's all the rage you know".

I'm not impressed. Milton Keynes started the same way, albeit it was greenfield. Roundabouts to nowhere...Oh my Droogies...

Clearly you live on a different planet or prefer contaminated industrial wasteland subject to flooding to something, if not perfect, VERY MUCH better.

 

[steveintoronto]

Clearly you live on a different planet or prefer contaminated industrial wasteland subject to flooding to something, if not perfect, VERY MUCH better.

Sir, clearly you're a fool.

I'm surrounded by culture and artisans. What I question, and obviously you completely miss the point, it does take a modicum of realization and reading what others write, and why they write it, is jumping out of the pot and into the fire. I'm all for revitalization. Do I have to define that word for you?

What I question is how this process is undertaken, financed and achieved. If you question that, then YOU are the Philistine. I have serious questions as to how and why this is being sold to Toronto, because that's exactly what this is, a sales job.

How's that water quality coming along with the Don, btw? Safe to swim in yet? Don't you think you should wash yourself before putting on deoderant?

 

[steveintoronto]

Let's be honest as to the real motivator:

[...]
For those concerned about a preference for parkland over development in the plan, Van Valkenburgh said that the structure of their plan raises the linear metres of frontage onto open space from 4,400 metres to 5,200 metres. The new river, he said, has helped structure the urban form. Basically, what this means is that more developments will front directly onto open space, thus raising real estate values in the area. Well-designed parkland and open space isn’t just a “nice to have,” as Mayor Ford might say, but a “need to have” if you are looking to raise real estate values as well as create a livable neighbourhood.[...]

http://torontoist.com/2011/09/a-river-runs-through-it/

 

[Skeezix]

[...] many are now questioning whether what's been done is what should have been done, and I'm one of them. [...]

Many? Who in particular? What are the specific critiques suggesting that the WDL ought to have been left alone.

I'm a bit confused. I'm not sure what artists in the west end being turfed because of rising rents has anything to do with redeveloping a largely vacant contaminated floodplain. How does leaving these lands vacant, poisoned and prone to flooding help artists?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What I question is how this process is undertaken, financed and achieved. If you question that, then YOU are the Philistine. I have serious questions as to how and why this is being sold to Toronto, because that's exactly what this is, a sales job.

---

How's that water quality coming along with the Don, btw? Safe to swim in yet? Don't you think you should wash yourself before putting on deoderant?

Question the process all one wanted - but it got the job done where others have failed before - that's no small mercy in this town.

re: Don River - actually, significantly better than it was
https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh...ing-enthusiasts-feel-the-lure-of-the-don.html

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

Many? Who in particular? What are the specific critiques suggesting that the WDL ought to have been left alone.

I'm a bit confused. I'm not sure what artists in the west end being turfed because of rising rents has anything to do with redeveloping a largely vacant contaminated floodplain. How does leaving these lands vacant, poisoned and prone to flooding help artists?

Clarification: In the Canary District.

The subject heading encompasses at least two distinct areas.

I'm totally in favour of revitalization, but not for the elitist few. And this isn't a topic of discussion unique to Toronto, it's happening in many hot real estate market cities, NYC, London, Van, etc. Will offer more reference and clarity later.

 

[steveintoronto]

Actually, significantly better than it was
https://www.thestar.com/news/insigh...ing-enthusiasts-feel-the-lure-of-the-don.html

AoD

Yes, I linked that prior. It still has a lot further to go. Isn't water quality an obvious place to start? The Thames (UK) is an example of what has to be done to achieve it. I see a glacial pace in Toronto, albeit separating storm sewers and the massive holding tank project are good starts.

But hey, why bog people down with reality when you can sell them a dream so easily? Goebbels would be impressed.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yes, I lined that prior. It still has a lot further to go. Isn't water quality an obvious place to start?

Not necessarily - the water quality issue covers the entire watershed - this is about the moth of the river - the most heavily contaminated, industrialized/channelized section.

As to the retort that revitalization is only for the "elitist few" - well, the parks are open to everyone, there is a substantial public use and affordable housing component. Let's not make it so black and white shall we?

AoD

 

[Skeezix]

The subject heading encompasses at least two distinct areas.

I'm totally in favour of revitalization, but not for the elitist few. And this isn't a topic of discussion unique to Toronto, it's happening in many hot real estate market cities, NYC, London, Van, etc. Will offer more reference and clarity later.

I've only ever been responding to your "I'm really torn on whether the whole West Donlands is an improvement over its former slovenly self", with the stuff about bleaching, etc.

Confused about how leaving a contaminated floodplain to rot helps anyone, let alone artists in the west end.

Unlike most communities in this city, WDL is being developed with 20% affordable rental housing.

I don't need information about what's happening in London, Vancouver or New York. I'm looking for information about the critiques which apparently say that WDL would have been better off being left alone.

 

[DSCToronto]

Sir, clearly you're a fool.

One could respond, as my grandmother used to say, "It takes one to know one" and one could argue about this (and with many of your positions on UT) but it hardly seems worth the effort. Another name to add to my banned list!

 

[steveintoronto]

One could respond, as my grandmother used to say, "It takes one to know one" and one could argue about this (and with many of your positions on UT) but it hardly seems worth the effort. Another name to add to my banned list!

Sir, your failing is your inability to read and counter with examples. I stand by my view of the now 'sanitized' lower Canary District. The baby was thrown out with the contaminated bathwater. Perhaps the area might change somewhat as time matures the area, but right now, it's a "New Town", and devoid of anything much more sophisticated than a glossy finish. Great for developers...I'll grant you this much: It's on the level of areas of the suburbs in terms of vitality and buzz. Actually I defer on my own claim. The artisans are now having to move to the burbs and further afield. Toronto is losing the plot...

 

[steveintoronto]

I don't need information about what's happening in London, Vancouver or New York. I'm looking for information about the critiques which apparently say that WDL would have been better off being left alone.

Another person intent on blocking any information that doesn't march in step. I never stated " better off being left alone".

I'm really torn on whether the whole West Donlands is an improvement over its former slovenly self.

Make no mistake, it was a contaminated cesspool, but to offer an analogy, many are now questioning whether what's been done is what should have been done, and I'm one of them.

I'm totally in favour of revitalization, but not for the elitist few.

I stand by every claim, save to qualify "West Donlands" as the Canary District, and you'd best brace yourselves, because your nirvana is going to be questioned by more as time goes on and the great hope is dashed by reality yet again. The PR campaign is going to wear off very soon, and reality will demand knowing *how* this going to be achieved. Toronto has no shortage of dreams for the upwardly mobile on borrowed money. And that's a huge part of the cause d'etre of this, not altruism for parkland.

The Globe was asking similar questions a year ago:

[...]
As early as this month, provincial officials are expected to sign off on the environmental assessment of the ambitious $1-billion plan to reroute and naturalize the lower Don River through the portlands, creating a new river mouth and floodplain. Commercial redevelopment on the portlands and the fallow 14-acre Unilever site, fronting Lake Shore Boulevard east of the Don, dubbed Toronto’s Canary Wharf, depend on the staged construction of flood-protection infrastructure. The three orders of government will share the expense.

Waterfront Toronto CEO John Campbell said in an interview that his agency intends to begin engineering studies later in the spring, and hopes to be “shovel ready” by 2016. But one of the largest infrastructure projects ever undertaken in Toronto can’t begin until Ottawa and the province agree to contribute their share of the overhead. Waterfront Toronto and City of Toronto sources are hopeful there will be progress this year because of the looming federal election. But collapsing world oil prices are wreaking havoc with Ottawa’s surplus projections, and declining federal revenues could affect projects like these.

With deputy mayor Denzil Minnan-Wong pressing Waterfront Toronto to be more financially transparent, the agency’s cost projections for this undertaking will come under intense scrutiny. Mr. Campbell said the budget includes a “healthy contingency,” but he added that as the agency completes its engineering studies, it will reassess the overall funding requirements.[...]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-torontos-waterfront-issues/article22282445/

Steve Munro makes some excellent points:

[...]
From the perspective of 2015 and a city that can’t seem to build anything, much less on such a grand scale, some of this may look like a wonderful dream we will never see. Political wrangling and economic upheavals over coming decades could spike the whole project, or trivialize the attempt to create new, integrated, well-designed neighbourhoods. We need only look at the central waterfront to see what happens when development runs madly ahead of any civic will or power to constrain builders to a good overall plan. New Queens Quay is beautiful, but imagine what might have happened if it had already been in place three decades ago and the waterfront developed around it at a scale the streets and transit could handle.

Queens Quay West is, at least, within moderate walking distance of existing transit lines, but the eastern waterfront is much different. We cannot afford a “transit last” mistake here where a few buses are seen as good enough to make do while transit fantasies elsewhere are showered with billions.

Will City Council engage with this plan, or tinker with it beyond recognition? Will partner governments at Queens Park and Ottawa recognize the value of what could be built here, a whole new city on the lake? Who will emerge as the Waterfront Champions?

https://stevemunro.ca/2015/11/19/port-lands-planning-update/

One of the most comprehensive and objective articles written on the subject.

Not necessarily - the water quality issue covers the entire watershed - this is about the moth of the river - the most heavily contaminated, industrialized/channelized section.

This is a fair point, but as with most deposited silt contaminants (heavy metals, phenols, PCBs, etc of the tank farms and industries located there, including smelters and even a pulp and paper mill active until the early sixties, what's in the soil and groundwater is sometimes best left there. This is the status of Hamilton Harbour at this time, even some rivers like the Hudson. But even if the polluted soils were dug out (remediation was tried for years some twenty five years ago on Cherry south of Commissioners, to questionable effect), the greatest pollution in the Don is coming from *upstream* not seepage from the silt.

From the City's own current website:
[...][Swimming in the Don
It is not advisable to swim in the Don. The quality of the water varies considerably, especially after rainstorms; the water in the lower Don is polluted with e-coli from combined sewer overflows that can make you very sick. If you should inadvertently fall into the Don, it would be wise to wash thoroughly with anti-bacterial soap as soon as possible.
[...]
In the Fall since the mid-1990s, salmon have been observed migrating up the river, looking for a place to spawn. These fish are native to the Pacific Ocean, but they have been stocked in Lake Ontario for sport fishing. In recent years the Toronto & Region Conservation Authority has constructed fish passages at several small weirs (dams) in the Don to help salmon and other migratory species find their way upstream. However, a great deal of restoration work remains to be done before these fish will have much chance of spawning successfully. [...]
http://www.toronto.ca/311/knowledgebase/21/101000038621.html

As to the retort that revitalization is only for the "elitist few" - well, the parks are open to everyone, there is a substantial public use and affordable housing component. Let's not make it so black and white shall we?

First off, please itemize this "affordable housing component". Seems to me that Toronto's claims to relegating development to mandating "affordable housing has been, errr...'somewhat remiss'.

Even the UN has commented on Toronto's failure in that regard, don't want to linger on this point. I have a ream of references here on the matter, Toronto has a pathetic record with only a few examples (almost all government and NGO agencies) where that has been achieved. So I welcome your examples. From all I can find searching for your claim, there are no detailed plans of the three distinct residential areas proposed.