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

[Marko]

The Globe was talking of the stadium and the private costs. But if that's the case, do you think think they have given up on the dream? Or is this on the temporay economy.

As far as I could tell, this 'new plan' is not for the entire area and would be just for the lower Portlands, which I assume is the portion south of the shipping channel. So over half of the available lands would still be available to develop either ar WT eventually hopes to, or maybe include a stadium. I heard the tail end of the interview on 1010 as well and was disappointed John Downs chose to go into attack-dog mode instead of trying to get more information out of Ford. It was an embarassing exchange and was far worse of an attack on a guest than anything SunTV did to the dancer from Montreal, which sparked the organized complaint frenzy to have the station shut down.

 

[nfitz]

It was an embarassing exchange and was far worse of an attack on a guest than anything SunTV did to the dancer from Montreal, which sparked the organized complaint frenzy to have the station shut down.

Dancer? SunTV shut down? Did I miss something? I noticed it was on-the-air this morning when I flicked past.

 

[Marko]

Dancer? SunTV shut down? Did I miss something? I noticed it was on-the-air this morning when I flicked past.

You're really going to play dumb about this?

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...view-elicited-record-complaints-says-watchdog

 

[StCatharinesCitizen]

Given how much UT devotes itself to "design matters", I think it's worth focussing upon StCatharinesCitizen's "taste values" for a second...

THIS...is a Gem?!? Let alone "almost as much as the falls themselves"?!?

So, if you want proof that StCatharinesCitizen is a philistine piece of garbage, there it is.

And I'm thinking to a post I made in the other waterfront thread...



So, to the likes of StCatharinesCitizen, this

was worth sacrificing on behalf of this

to the point where "yeah, if they had to do it over again, they would".

Wow you have taken this way overboard into a criticism of my specific taste in architecture which is nothing like what you have presented. I didn't even have a word about Penn Station or Madison Square Garden so thanks for veering from the argument with unjustified information.

I chose to speak of this complex not because of its architecture and landscaping which is clearly not visible in the worst possible picture you chose of it, but because of its integration of far more amenities than just a casino. If you ask people in Niagara Falls, most will say that the casino was one of the best things built down there. I live in Niagara Falls so dont question that opinion.

"This $1 billion complex with a belle époque theme overlooks the Horseshoe Falls and is one of the most prominent features of the Niagara skyline."

"Entire complex area: 2,500,000 sq ft (232,000 m2)
Casino floor area: 200,000 sq ft (19,000 m2)
Concert Showroom (Avalon Ballroom) with 1500 seats: 1
Hotel rooms/suites: 368
Heath/fitness spa area: 15,000 sq ft (1,400 m2)
Restaurants: 10
Wedding Chapel: 1
Nightclubs: 1
Galleria Shopping Center
Parking Spots in parking garage: 3,000
The casino has a 35-floor 374-room hotel rising from above the casino complex."

"One For The Home Teamâ€

Reviewed August 30, 2011 NEW
Thought I would give a Very Good nod to the Fallsview Casino Resort in my own backyard. This is a beautiful property in a beautiful location.The rooms and suites are stylishly decorated and offer magnificent views of the Canadian Falls.The casino is large with an upscale feel rivaling The Bellagio, a favorite of mine.The same wonderful ambiance extends to the...

MY POINT IS THAT INVESTORS ARE WILLING TO CREATE BEAUTIFUL PUBLICLY ACCESSABLE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS. THE ENTIRE FACILITY IS ACCESSABLE OTHER THAN THE 200,000 sq. ft. casino of the 2,500,000 sq. ft. property.

Stop getting into personal bashing, thats not what this thread or any other thread is about. Your arguing with someone who will always win so you might as well stop now. Lets get back to the real purpose of this thread and discuss the positives and negatives of this PLAN not ROB FORD.

 

[StCatharinesCitizen]

As far as I could tell, this 'new plan' is not for the entire area and would be just for the lower Portlands, which I assume is the portion south of the shipping channel. So over half of the available lands would still be available to develop either ar WT eventually hopes to, or maybe include a stadium. I heard the tail end of the interview on 1010 as well and was disappointed John Downs chose to go into attack-dog mode instead of trying to get more information out of Ford. It was an embarassing exchange and was far worse of an attack on a guest than anything SunTV did to the dancer from Montreal, which sparked the organized complaint frenzy to have the station shut down.

Exactly. This is the way of the NDP's and Leftists. Shut him down before he can even get to explaining what the plan is all about. That way we look smart and make him look dumb. Great politics...

Lets take the politics out.

I like the idea of the monorail, However I would prefer to see a casino or entertainment venue replace the idea of a megamall.

 

[Marko]

Exactly. This is the way of the NDP's and Leftists. Shut him down before he can even get to explaining what the plan is all about. That way we look smart and make him look dumb.

It does seem to follow a pattern, not just in politics or the media, but on here. There's a snobbery at work that only undermines the valid points and concerns they may have.

I like the idea of the monorail, However I would prefer to see a casino or entertainment venue replace the idea of a megamall.

Elevated rail I like, monorail less so. Better connection across the lower portion of the city I like, casino less so. The thought of a casino doesn't instantly scare me off like some, but I don't like the way most of them are made to look. They may fit just fine in Vegas or Macau, but don't need to look exactly the same flashy way everywhere they go. The exterior os a casino needn't look any different than the podiums of many of the liked buildings in Toronto. There, but subtle.

I also don't liek the term 'megamall' as it conjures up visions of West Edmonton mall or something of the like. There are plenty of well designed, finctional urban malls that mesh with their surroundings while still providing a shopping experience. A multi-use complex with a mix of retail, hospitality and residential could be made to work within even the previously approved direction of the port lands development.

 

[CanadianNational]

StCatherinesCitizen: Sorry about making this a bit personal, but - You're new on here and already you're trying to give people hives. It's not like you have to be from Toronto to be on here (you may be), but please - try to be a little bit polite and considerate. You can't just wade in here farting and burping out vitriol and expect a cheerful response. We're already dealing with Nads and Automation Gallery setting off firecrackers and throwing spitballs.

As for trying to separate the 'Plan' from the 'Ford(s)', that's impossible. Since there is no plan, and it's all in the Ford(s)'s head that's one thing - but since his whims seem to carry the weight of awful possibility (re: cancelling transit city, councillor's lunches, STI nurses) - there's no way to separate the two. Besides, it's his very own personal idea. Even if there were a glossy brochure on every street corner telling us why he wants to shatter the plans that we taxpayers have already paid for (and are council approved) for his very own land grab, we would still have the right to criticize both the plan and himself for it's attempted origin in his noggin(s).

Besides - anyone who openly declares that they(s) (sic) are doing backroom dealings publicly! should have all the comment shovelled at them that the combined keyboards of the city can muster.

 

[StCatharinesCitizen]

It does seem to follow a pattern, not just in politics or the media, but on here. There's a snobbery at work that only undermines the valid points and concerns they may have.


Elevated rail I like, monorail less so. Better connection across the lower portion of the city I like, casino less so. The thought of a casino doesn't instantly scare me off like some, but I don't like the way most of them are made to look. They may fit just fine in Vegas or Macau, but don't need to look exactly the same flashy way everywhere they go. The exterior os a casino needn't look any different than the podiums of many of the liked buildings in Toronto. There, but subtle.

I also don't liek the term 'megamall' as it conjures up visions of West Edmonton mall or something of the like. There are plenty of well designed, finctional urban malls that mesh with their surroundings while still providing a shopping experience. A multi-use complex with a mix of retail, hospitality and residential could be made to work within even the previously approved direction of the port lands development.

Yes, ive heard bad things about monorails too, mostly the expense. They just seem to be the cleanest looking mode of elevated transportation in my opinion. If the expense could be (mostly) covered (private investment) and the monorails can reach speeds of a subway, I think its worth while.

I agree with the casino completely. If you look at the fallsview casino in Niagara Falls, its actually not all that flashy. That's why I like it and I think they did a very good job of blending it in with the area.

 

[StCatharinesCitizen]

StCatherinesCitizen: You're new on here and already you're trying to give people hives. It's not like you have to be from Toronto to be on here (you may be), but please - try to be a little bit polite and considerate. You can't just wade in here farting and burping out vitriol and expect a cheerful response. We're already dealing with Nads and Automation Gallery setting off firecrackers and throwing spitballs.

As for trying to separate the 'Plan' from the 'Ford(s)', that's impossible. Since there is no plan, and it's all in the Ford(s)'s head - and yet his whims seem to carry the weight of awful possibility (re: transit city) - there's no way to separate the two. Besides, it's his very own personal idea. Even if there were a glossy brochure on every street corner telling us why he wants to shatter the plans that we taxpayers have already paid for (and are council approved) for his very own land grab, we would still have the right to criticize both the plan and himself for it's attempted origin in his noggin(s).

Once again an arbitrary Leftist view. I have contributed far less to the bickering and more to the logical arguing.

You actually dont have the right to criticize a plan that you know nothing about. Well sure, you have the right, but its useless until you know the full extent of his plan. You just make the assumption (again Leftist) that the plan will be a bad one and shut it down before its even fully proposed to the public. Waterfront Toronto has done very little when you look at the waterfront as a whole. The areas they have developed are actually pretty awesome, but they are pulling the city, province and country further into debt. They need to make more room for private investment while still maintaining public access. Its possible and its been done around the world so why not here.

 

[Torontovibe]

An enclosed shopping mall can go anywhere. Why would you waste waterfront land to build a suburban style mall? Just the parking alone will destroy any chance of making the area pedestrian friendly. In a waterfront area, or even an urban area near the core, the retail should be lining the major streets, at the bottom of condos. With all the traffic problems this city already has, why would we want to encourage a huge increase in traffic?

A Ferris wheel is fine but is this a prime viewing location for one? Yes, the view of the islands on the water would be nice for the first 20 seconds but it's too far away from the centre of the core. Unless tourists have super zoom cameras, all they will be able to see is the general skyline. It's just not going to work. If it is built, I imagine it will last about as long as the Olympic Spirit lasted in Dundas Square. (a year if they're lucky) The CN Tower has the perfect location for viewing the city. (especially for architecture geeks like us) You would miss out on all the great architecture from the Portlands. The London Eye is right in the centre of London, overlooking all the great buildings and the river. It's not outside of the downtown core. (people are missing that very important point) The Portlands does not have the same type of great location.

I have no faith in the Fords to carry this out anyway. These guys just talk but when it comes to getting things done, I don't even think the private sector has any faith in them. They certainly aren't lining up to build Rob his subway.

Was this thread put up to discuss the Portlands plan or to start another right VS. left political thread? Why does it always end up that way? Down with pinkos and communists! lol

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

An enclosed shopping mall can go anywhere. Why would you waste waterfront land to build a suburban style mall? Just the parking alone will destroy any chance of making the area pedestrian friendly. In a waterfront area, or even an urban area near the core, the retail should be lining the major streets, at the bottom of condos. With all the traffic problems this city already has, why would we want to encourage a huge increase in traffic?

A Ferris wheel is fine but is this a prime viewing location for one? Yes, the view of the islands on the water would be nice for the first 20 seconds but it's too far away from the centre of the core. Unless tourists have super zoom cameras, all they will be able to see is the general skyline. It's just not going to work. If it is built, I imagine it will last about as long as the Olympic Spirit lasted in Dundas Square. (a year if they're lucky) The CN Tower has the perfect location for viewing the city. (especially for architecture geeks like us) You would miss out on all the great architecture from the Portlands. The London Eye is right in the centre of London, overlooking all the great buildings and the river. It's not outside of the downtown core. (people are missing that very important point) The Portlands does not have the same type of great location.

I have no faith in the Fords to carry this out anyway. These guys just talk but when it comes to getting things done, I don't even think the private sector has any faith in them. They certainly aren't lining up to build Rob his subway.

Was this thread put up to discuss the Portlands plan or to start another right VS. left political thread? Why does it always end up that way? Down with pinkos and communists! lol

It was to dicuss the plan. Sorry about that TorontoVibe. I know its hard to tell with all the bickering.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

An enclosed shopping mall can go anywhere. Why would you waste waterfront land to build a suburban style mall? Just the parking alone will destroy any chance of making the area pedestrian friendly. In a waterfront area, or even an urban area near the core, the retail should be lining the major streets, at the bottom of condos. With all the traffic problems this city already has, why would we want to encourage a huge increase in traffic?

A Ferris wheel is fine but is this a prime viewing location for one? Yes, the view of the islands on the water would be nice for the first 20 seconds but it's too far away from the centre of the core. Unless tourists have super zoom cameras, all they will be able to see is the general skyline. It's just not going to work. If it is built, I imagine it will last about as long as the Olympic Spirit lasted in Dundas Square. (a year if they're lucky) The CN Tower has the perfect location for viewing the city. (especially for architecture geeks like us) You would miss out on all the great architecture from the Portlands. The London Eye is right in the centre of London, overlooking all the great buildings and the river. It's not outside of the downtown core. (people are missing that very important point) The Portlands does not have the same type of great location.

I have no faith in the Fords to carry this out anyway. These guys just talk but when it comes to getting things done, I don't even think the private sector has any faith in them. They certainly aren't lining up to build Rob his subway.

Was this thread put up to discuss the Portlands plan or to start another right VS. left political thread? Why does it always end up that way? Down with pinkos and communists! lol

It was to dicuss the plan. Sorry about that TorontoVibe. I know its hard to tell with all the bickering.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Once again an arbitrary Leftist view. I have contributed far less to the bickering and more to the logical arguing.

You actually dont have the right to criticize a plan that you know nothing about. Well sure, you have the right, but its useless until you know the full extent of his plan. You just make the assumption (again Leftist) that the plan will be a bad one and shut it down before its even fully proposed to the public. Waterfront Toronto has done very little when you look at the waterfront as a whole. The areas they have developed are actually pretty awesome, but they are pulling the city, province and country further into debt. They need to make more room for private investment while still maintaining public access. Its possible and its been done around the world so why not here.

For the record, I disagree and agree with alot of what you say. But you are trying to contribute, at least I can say that compared to those from here who runaway from the city and then bash it from the McMansions.

 

[Gavin]

Anyone arguing that a new mall would be anchored by a Macy's, Nordstrom, and Bloomingdale's -- none of which have a single location anywhere in Canada, but would all (or even one) be on board with this "plan" -- has no fucking clue how retail actually works.

 

[CanadianNational]

Charges of criticism or comment about this topic being arbitrary are nonsense. You and others, by the same token, also do not have the right to defend a plan that you also, similarly, know nothing about. Also, the notion that common sense or foolishness is the special property of a political label is also nonsense. So let's put those canards right out of the way.

People in Toronto are not against Ferris Wheels, large malls or even, after a tipple, a monorail. But they do not want to see the plans they have already paid for through their elected governent, scrapped by a clumsy Mayor(s)'s interference after a decade of patient waiting. Far from speeding up Waterfront development, Ford(s)'s interference could factually slow it down or even sabotage it. We saw this before Jim Flaherty took him aside and gave him a talking to regarding rambling on about the Eastern Waterfront - nonsense that might have given Hines, the massive developer, cold feet - and caused further instability in the perception of Toronto's waterfront as a reliable investment.

What we do know is that Waterfront Toronto is not dragging the country down into debt. That is an specious and ridiculous notion. After remediation, it is understood that the assets held by the city on the land will be an ongoing source of net revenue - in addition to all the 'soft' benefits to the city and it's economy through image, tourism, popularity, stability, long-term professionalism, etc.

What we do know is that based on Ford's disregard for governmental planning, populist input, professional advice, the cares of the city's citizens, free citizen input, his willingness to squander taxpayers money on a whim, his mean single-mindedness regarding issues that obsess him, his unfamiliarity and open contempt with urban planning issues, the hollowness of his claims and the backroom means by which he operates, we cannot expect a development that will continue to match the same excellent standard as the developments we currently see coming to fruition under Waterfront Toronto.

It also follows that any new development singly pushed for by the Ford(s), need not be integrated with the existing waterfront, and in fact, might compromise it.
It does not seem likely that he will be holding a public competition for the project, it's developers or tenders.

Waterfront Toronto has done a great deal, though a lot of it has been invisible - the ugly stuff like flood protection, planning, EA's, specs and sewage. Waterfront Toronto is a public-private enabler, so your bit about needing more private enterprise is disingenuous. Private enterprise is only going near the land because of the massive government-initiated ground contamination cleanup and infrastructure laying - a huge bill that no private company could want to foot - has been done by the government. And yes, this includes flood protection.



Ford has already shown us with the Sheppard Subway that he has a method to these pitches of madness he imbibes in, and that there is no substance behind it. In fact, they are destructive actions, because although they tickle as promises do, they get in the way of real progress.

The things that are done around the world - for better or for worse - are often done here. Frustratingly, we take things a bit slowly and considerately, which means we often end up, happily, with more of the good. The waterfront plan is one of those things. It will take the patience of Job to see it through, but the results will be worth it.

I know you've been helping the dialogue, and I apologize for beaking at you. But I read a little too much Toronto Sun today, and got overheated. Their trouble with things like adverbs and facts and lies always gives me a dither.