Toronto Queens Quay & Water's Edge Revitalization | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

[Torontovibe]

They should do what was done with Dundas Square. Put a few levels of parking underground, then build something interesting on top. (Maybe a museum or art gallery with a public square) Our waterfront has no major attractions, accept for maybe Ontario place, if they'd fix the thing up. We need some first rate attractions on the waterfront.

 

[W. K. Lis]

They should do what was done with Dundas Square. Put a few levels of parking underground, then build something interesting on top. (Maybe a museum or art gallery with a public square) Our waterfront has no major attractions, accept for maybe Ontario place, if they'd fix the thing up. We need some first rate attractions on the waterfront.

All of Queen's Quay is landfill, so going underground will require sump pumps to operate 24/7. Unless we want an cement pond or pool in the lower levels. That is also why the Bay Street portal of the LRT leaks at the Queens Quay station, its Lake Ontario trying to reclaim the tunnel.

 

[jn_12]

Yeah it is, but its a huge source of income for the Harbourfront Centre, they gross prolly 500K+ a year, consider they charge 15 dollars per spot, and its guarenteed full for almost every sporting event in Rogers or ACC, during the Auto Show and also other conferences. I just dont see them giving it up anytime soon.

True, but Harbourfront Centre is government funded. The government should be able to compensate for the loss, plus they have the potential to build some sort of market square (let's say) where they could charge rent. I think they could recoup their losses easily that way as well. Also, if Canada Square is built, there will be an underground parking component there (if I recall correctly) so I'm sure there would be enough spots there to make up for the Rees lot.

I just think revenue is a sad excuse for keeping a parking lot on a road where the city wants "one of the top 10 streets in the world." If you want an analogy it'd be like if the Place de la Concorde on the Champs Elysee was a parking lot.

 

[interchange42]

TOAreaFan: sorry I didn't get back to your response right away, but Alvin has done a better job than I could explaining the situation, and I've been busing over in the P&C Forum...

42

 

[W. K. Lis]

They should do what was done with Dundas Square. Put a few levels of parking underground, then build something interesting on top. (Maybe a museum or art gallery with a public square) Our waterfront has no major attractions, accept for maybe Ontario place, if they'd fix the thing up. We need some first rate attractions on the waterfront.

Look at what happened to the Loblaws parking lot at Jarvis and Queen's Quay after the rain on March 29th:

From More Than a Puddle at Loblaws Parking Lot at BlogTO. Why underground parking lots is not recommended along Queen's Quay.

 

[jn_12]

Do we know what caused that? It's not like it happens everytime we get substantial levels of rain. There are also other underground parking facilities on the harbourfront that don't have this problem, so to use a one-off event as the foundation for future policy probably isn't the best way to go about things.

 

[Kitsune]

It happens whenever we get a quick heavy downpour as we had this morning. It happens a few times a year, if not more to the Loblaws. However it drains fast once the rain stops.

 

[khris]

I would say the drains were probably also clogged. After the snow melts, a lot of junk builds up in the drains.

 

[Tewder]

Tewder:

If you decide to equate support for a measured approach over speed as "apathy", so be it. That said, considering the amount of time I've been following this project and waterfront revitalization in general, I think I have a better claim to the opposite than 99% of the population out there.

Besides, other than criticizing - have you taken the time to learn why things are the way they are such that it can inform where to push for changes? I have a strange feeling that a lot of those who criticize doesn't want to do the dirty work and just wanted things done by decree. Sorry, that's not how our society operates. If you take the time to read say, the WT backgrounder on the topic - it states very clearly as to why the process is so lengthy - between the reuslts of a design competition - which has no legal force - to actual implementation. And I quote from the backgrounder (p. 1):

While Waterfront Toronto was an advocate of the winning design, it fully supported the statutorily-required Class Environmental Assessment (EA) process which had to occur before any work on Queens Quay could begin. Queens Quay was the subject of two EAs, one focused on the street‟s revitalization and the other on transit needs:

That ate up 2 years - PLUS legally required approval by the Minister (after a legally mandated period for public comments) and the city to sign off on the plan before sod can be turned. Now, do I like the fact that it takes up so much time? No, but I don't have to like it - and if I really am interested in making a difference, I would know the why and the hows and who to contact - instead of stomping on the ground and cry "it's taking too long".

AoD

I think there's a little 'analysis paralysis' happening here, and as you say a broken system of overlapping jurisdictions and bureaucracy and so on. This may indeed go a long way to explain the delays, but it doesn't excuse them... and what's wrong with expressing some public criticism of this? Are we really expected to spend our limited time trying to decipher the folly of the powers at play here? No. As you say you are 99% more informed than the average person about this project. The average person, however, can and will sit back and say, fairly reasonably, that 6 years is too long for this sort of project. Why be dismissive of this?. The raising of public awareness and indignation *can* effect change. This takes time too though.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

I think there's a little 'analysis paralysis' happening here, and as you say a broken system of overlapping jurisdictions and bureaucracy and so on. This may indeed go a long way to explain the delays, but it doesn't excuse them...

Is it "paralysis"? Considering the projects are moving ahead and not subjected to a series of stop and goes that is the historical approach to waterfront redevelopment - THAT is paralysis.

Now, I don't have to like that system - but changing THAT will probably take even more time than an EA. Now, do you want to wait till we've changed the system (which will require legislation to be debated. etc - assuming that the issue even gets on the agenda, which is even chancier) before we act?

Are we really expected to spend our limited time trying to decipher the folly of the powers at play here? No.

Actually, yes. You are a citizen - if you have such a high level concerns about something not happening, it is your job to learn why things are the way they are so as to inform changes where it makes a difference. Quite frankly, what you've expressed in exactly the sort of apathy that allowed the political powers that be to get away with what they've been doing.

The average person, however, can and will sit back and say, fairly reasonably, that 6 years is too long for this sort of project.

And how does one come to the arbitary conclusion that for 'this sort' (which means what, exactly?) of project, 6 years is too long? The personal desire to see things happen the moment after a competition winner is announced?

The raising of public awareness and indignation *can* effect change. This takes time too though.

Considering what you've just told me about not wanting the spend the time to learn vis-a-vis other personal priorities, I won't be so sanguine about that. Care to take a guess whether individuals who aren't even willing to commit themselves to learning about an issue will have their attention fixated upon that very issue?

AoD

 

[Tewder]

Is it "paralysis"? Considering the projects are moving ahead and not subjected to a series of stop and goes that is the historical approach to waterfront redevelopment - THAT is paralysis.

In other words, it would have taken even longer in the past so we shouldn't complain? Two or three 'boat slips' a year is not exactly a mind-blowing pace of development here.

Actually, yes. You are a citizen - if you have such a high level concerns about something not happening, it is your job to learn why things are the way they are so as to inform changes where it makes a difference. Quite frankly, what you've expressed in exactly the sort of apathy that allowed the political powers that be to get away with what they've been doing.

I think our being too 'understanding' is what gives the politicians too much freedom. I don't feel I need to know the interminable ins and outs of why some glorified landscaping takes six years (estimated, at this rate lets see what is finished in six years), and I don't need to be an expert in government/bureaucracy to be unhappy with this and voice it.

And how does one come to the arbitary conclusion that for 'this sort' (which means what, exactly?) of project, 6 years is too long? The personal desire to see things happen the moment after a competition winner is announced?.

Good grief, the experimental closing of Queen's Quay happened almost three years ago! How much more 'studying' needs to be done?? How much more money needs to be spent (QQ closure cost $1 million) and wasted as the once-estimated cost for all of this rises in the meantime? Now we're being conned to believe that still more analysis is required and three more years before breaking ground?? I don't think so. I can recognize government waste and red tape when I see it. A certain amount of it is necessary obviously, but six+ years? Again, some perspective: Vancouver will have realized the Olympic Games in little over seven years.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tewder:

In other words, it would have taken even longer in the past so we shouldn't complain? Two or three 'boat slips' a year is not exactly a mind-blowing pace of development here.

And that count as "paralysis"? Stop being so melodramatic. You are living in Canada and not Dubai for a reason, no?

I think our being too 'understanding' is what gives the politicians too much freedom. I don't feel I need to know the interminable ins and outs of why some glorified landscaping takes six years (estimated, at this rate lets see what is finished in six years), and I don't need to be an expert in government/bureaucracy to be unhappy with this and voice it.

Well, if you feel you have the right to be righteous about ignorance, be my guest - just rest assured that you won't be the one being responsible for a half-baked job because of your need for haste at all costs. Not to mention, I question the effectiveness of complaining about it here instead of the ballot box. Good luck about effecting change through that method though, considering the Toronto waterfront isn't the agenda that most politicans got elected on.

Good grief, the experimental closing of Queen's Quay happened almost three years ago! How much more 'studying' needs to be done?? How much more money needs to be spent (QQ closure cost $1 million) and wasted as the once-estimated cost for all of this rises in the meantime? Now we're being conned to believe that still more analysis is required and three more years before breaking ground?? I don't think so. I can recognize government waste and red tape when I see it. A certain amount of it is necessary obviously, but six+ years? Again, some perspective: Vancouver will have realized the Olympic Games in little over seven years.

Experimental closing - for one weekend - which was meant more as a PR event to "sell" the project to the public than to determine whether the project is technically feasible. Would you have said what you said if you live along Queen's Quay and are the ones who could be negatively affected by the scheme? That's not to mention - none of the access issue for the properties was dealt with properly during that time. Are you prepared to sink what, $200M into a plan that requires costly remediation just because someone hasn't done their due diligence? That's not to mention the issue of legal liability.

Conned into more analysis is required? The analysis is almost DONE - did you even read what I've said and other materials that have been posted? The EA is almost complete - all that's left is finalizing the selected alternative, go through the mandatory public comments period and have the Minister and the City signing off on it before construction in the new year. Not 3 more years of study before construction.

Interesting you should mention the Olympics - did you even realize the amount of work that went into it prior to them getting the bid, or whether the EA required in Toronto is more onerous than what happened in Vancouver with regards to RAV or Sea-to-Sky? And it isn't like RAV happened overnight - they also had their share of stop-and-go and various debates - just like we did.

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

Do we know what caused that? It's not like it happens everytime we get substantial levels of rain. There are also other underground parking facilities on the harbourfront that don't have this problem, so to use a one-off event as the foundation for future policy probably isn't the best way to go about things.

That Loblaws parking lot floods all the time - it's brutal. That photo looks worse than I've ever seen it in person, but it DOES happen every time it rains heavily.

It's something specific to that stupid lot, no other parking lot looks like that in the rain. Also...that's a SURFACE lot (Loblaws is built over it as a second story) - its flooding has nothing to do with underground parking.

 

[jn_12]

^ Thanks for that.

I think it's clear we know how to build underground parking on the waterfront. The parking facility beside the Music Garden is practically in the lake. So I'm not concerned whatsoever. Hopefully they can build something under Harbourfront and get rid of the surface lot there to make room for something great.

 

[Tewder]

Tewder:

And that count as "paralysis"? Stop being so melodramatic. You are living in Canada and not Dubai for a reason, no?

Sorry for the 'melodrama' but what is it with these forced dichotomies? Are the only options for us the bureacratic mire of Toronto development on the one hand or Dubai on the other? How is this constructive?

Well, if you feel you have the right to be righteous about ignorance, be my guest - just rest assured that you won't be the one being responsible for a half-baked job because of your need for haste at all costs.

My point is that as lay people the public isn't necessarily composed of expertly informed individuals who understand every aspect of government planning and development or the ins and outs of every urban issue or project. We do rely just a little on the fact that the people we pay and elect to do these jobs will do them efficiently and still manage to avoid 'half-baked' jobs. Your persistance in dismissing me or the general public or our opinions as 'meldodramatic' and 'ignorant' does not alleviate our impression that six years is simply too long for this. We may not all be experts but some of us do know enough about this project and its history to reject such an argument as defensive posturing.

Experimental closing - for one weekend - which was meant more as a PR event to "sell" the project to the public than to determine whether the project is technically feasible. Would you have said what you said if you live along Queen's Quay and are the ones who could be negatively affected by the scheme? That's not to mention - none of the access issue for the properties was dealt with properly during that time. Are you prepared to sink what, $200M into a plan that requires costly remediation just because someone hasn't done their due diligence? That's not to mention the issue of legal liability.

Conned into more analysis is required? The analysis is almost DONE - did you even read what I've said and other materials that have been posted? The EA is almost complete - all that's left is finalizing the selected alternative, go through the mandatory public comments period and have the Minister and the City signing off on it before construction in the new year. Not 3 more years of study before construction.

Interesting you should mention the Olympics - did you even realize the amount of work that went into it prior to them getting the bid, or whether the EA required in Toronto is more onerous than what happened in Vancouver with regards to RAV or Sea-to-Sky? And it isn't like RAV happened overnight - they also had their share of stop-and-go and various debates - just like we did.

AoD

I'm sorry AoD but none of the above convinces me. It just sounds like more defensive excuses to justify government waste and inertia:

1) A million dollar 'pr' event to convince people that a nicely landscaped Queen's Quay will be a benefit? Good Lord, how much planning and time did that consume?

2) Four to Five years for an ea and paperwork? What are these people doing? They're certainly not spending a lot of time maintaining the parks, pavement and roads and public spaces

3) I will admit that some prior planning obviously went into the Vancouver Olympics, but a little outside benchmarking does give us 'some' perspective in the face of being dismissed as whining and 'ignorant' by Toronto civil servants. Six years to complete Queen's Quay (I'm sure planning of this began before 2006 too for that matter) vs the realizing of the Olympics Games?