67Cup
Active Member
Do you have a link re Jennifer Keesmat's opinion?
Toronto Chelsea Green (was 33 Gerrard) | 297.25m | 90s | Great Eagle | a—A
- Thread starter markel
- Start date
bmiller
Active Member
This is a link to the TVO segment on The Agenda. The whole 30 min. show is interesting, especially for those present and prospective condo buyers. Jennifer's segment on Yonge st. is
at the 26:15 min. mark. You can draw your own conclusions. I've already drawn mine.
http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/faulty-towers
at the 26:15 min. mark. You can draw your own conclusions. I've already drawn mine.
http://tvo.org/video/programs/the-agenda-with-steve-paikin/faulty-towers
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
Council decides, not Keesmaat. The most Planning gets to do is make recommendations to Council. Keesmaat can make noise, and Council might listen.
Either way it should be remembered that the two big proposals north of College are almost certainly just rezoning exercises, so it probably doesn't matter whether they are opposed or not--same result either way. (Unless you are the property owner.)
ksun
Senior Member
The problem is that your argument is based on nothing concrete, just a hunch that it is too many people for the infrastructure. I am sure the city considers this factor while approving this project (or any project of large scale).
Of course your concern is legitimate, but you talk as if you already did the math and have the conclusion.
Waterloo_Guy
Active Member
Also, the existing hotel uses tremendous resources already. The developer will no doubt have numbers comparing the hotel to the new proposal in order to make the case. I think this will be key in the approvals process.
Redevelopment at Gerrard would not put as much strain on transit capacity as developments further north. Further north, nearly everyone's trying to get downtown. Down here, people have already started getting off the subway, so there's a little room to take up, but how often are people at Gerrard going to head for the subway anyway? There'd be little point of going north to College to go south ultimately, as you're doubling back at the same time as facing a fuller subway than you would at Dundas… and if you go south to Dundas, who's going to pay $3 to ride the subway two stops to King? Instead, you're just going to walk.
So, it's not at Gerrard that Keesmaat will be opposing massive development projects; it'll be further north.
42
So, it's not at Gerrard that Keesmaat will be opposing massive development projects; it'll be further north.
42
agoraflaneur
Active Member
I watched the TVO segment, and Keesmaat was certainly not adamant in her position by any means - she specifically rejected the claim that the Toronto Star had made, which was a headline suggesting she wanted to "hit the pause button on development along Yonge."
Instead, she argued that we as a city need to take a wholistic, long-term approach to development, considering community, green space, transit, and infrastructure needs alongside buildings in order to promote a resilient city that will have good quality of life in the long run. To do that, people need to "pause" their focus solely on buildings and step back to see how the city is developing as a whole.
My interpretation of her argument was that taking that wholistic approach may mean slowing down development, but only if the city - as it often does - fails to act quickly. The onus is almost entirely on government to get their act together on many of the complete community pieces, for instance on the regulatory side in updates to the building code or to zoning, or on the infrastructure side in transit, community amenities, and the reimagining of our streets. However, I would hope developers get on board as well when possible and try to imagine how their developments can improve the community at large beyond section 37 funds. We have had some success in that regard, for example with Wellesley on the park, which filled a green space gap the city may have had trouble filling - but more can be done on the whole.
But, the question remains: if government fails to act - which in the Yonge street corridor has been the case so far - will Keesmaat demand that the private sector halt as well? Her comments didn't suggest that to me. Instead, it seemed more like a plea for action.
Instead, she argued that we as a city need to take a wholistic, long-term approach to development, considering community, green space, transit, and infrastructure needs alongside buildings in order to promote a resilient city that will have good quality of life in the long run. To do that, people need to "pause" their focus solely on buildings and step back to see how the city is developing as a whole.
My interpretation of her argument was that taking that wholistic approach may mean slowing down development, but only if the city - as it often does - fails to act quickly. The onus is almost entirely on government to get their act together on many of the complete community pieces, for instance on the regulatory side in updates to the building code or to zoning, or on the infrastructure side in transit, community amenities, and the reimagining of our streets. However, I would hope developers get on board as well when possible and try to imagine how their developments can improve the community at large beyond section 37 funds. We have had some success in that regard, for example with Wellesley on the park, which filled a green space gap the city may have had trouble filling - but more can be done on the whole.
But, the question remains: if government fails to act - which in the Yonge street corridor has been the case so far - will Keesmaat demand that the private sector halt as well? Her comments didn't suggest that to me. Instead, it seemed more like a plea for action.
condovo
Senior Member
^^^Developers must be given an incentive to improve the community at large beyond Section 37 funds. Without an incentive, they won't do it, i.e., they won't fill in the void left by government.
bmiller
Active Member
We all know how government acts on large scale infrastructure projects which require 100's of millions if not billions of dollars. I'm not sure exactly which segments of infrastructure she is talking about, but
i assume transit, water, sewer capacity and of course public spaces. These alone require massive amounts of money that aren't going to come from developers. The Feds got elected on a platform that included infrastructure spending,
but they could spend a good portion of the total on the core of Toronto alone. Captain Wynne will be handing out money that we don't have next year before the election. Not enough i'm afraid. Jennifer does make a good case.
Maybe her plea for action will be enough to get council to hit the pause button. She was being quite diplomatic on the show and we'll find out soon enough if she intends to take a firm stand. I'm not sure if she alone will get the results she is
after. We should have a good idea by the end of the year.
I watched Jennifer's segment a second time, and yes i agree, adamant is the wrong term. I remembered from the time the show first aired her talking about putting the brakes on, and it's
a passionate plea, nothing more. Whether that has any weight will be seen soon enough with all the applications that keep coming in. There appears to be no slowdown.
i assume transit, water, sewer capacity and of course public spaces. These alone require massive amounts of money that aren't going to come from developers. The Feds got elected on a platform that included infrastructure spending,
but they could spend a good portion of the total on the core of Toronto alone. Captain Wynne will be handing out money that we don't have next year before the election. Not enough i'm afraid. Jennifer does make a good case.
Maybe her plea for action will be enough to get council to hit the pause button. She was being quite diplomatic on the show and we'll find out soon enough if she intends to take a firm stand. I'm not sure if she alone will get the results she is
after. We should have a good idea by the end of the year.
I watched Jennifer's segment a second time, and yes i agree, adamant is the wrong term. I remembered from the time the show first aired her talking about putting the brakes on, and it's
a passionate plea, nothing more. Whether that has any weight will be seen soon enough with all the applications that keep coming in. There appears to be no slowdown.
Last edited:
agoraflaneur
Active Member
@bmiller
There are so many facets to infrastructure - some that require billions and long time-frames, others that do not.
What is true is that the provincial liberals have increased infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, the great majority of it is not destined for downtown Toronto, and fault for that lies with all levels of government. Some of the problems are due to a lack of concern from all levels of government with the growth needs of downtown. The feds have started the DRL money pot, but this clearly should have been done years ago.
On the other hand, the City has chosen to spend a huge amount of money on the Gardiner East, serving the needs of very few. The same could be said of the Scarborough subway, or the UPX. So it isn't simply a question of money, but also of priorities.
I don't have extensive knowledge of water and sewer needs, but certainly there is ongoing, multi-year major investment all over the city - supported, I might add, by increases in our taxes specifically for water delivery. So there are actually areas where we are taking action, and despite reports of concern with sewers, my understanding is that water infrastructure is in relatively good shape.
Then there is the swollen parks fund, which has sat mostly unused - the City failed to buy properties in anticipation of the uptick in density. So in some cases we have money, but aren't spending it.
But many of the fixes do not require huge sums, just planning. This is where a comprehensive zoning rethink, or a building code reform, would come into play. The same goes for things like providing transit priority, which I am happy to say is finally happening on King. However, I've been waiting years for the John Street revitalization, the Yonge remake, etc. - and we have had slow movement on bike lanes and pedestrianized spaces compared to peer jurisdictions. These actions cost little, but add up to the long term revitalized whole.
To be sure, money is needed. But there are so many moving parts.
There are so many facets to infrastructure - some that require billions and long time-frames, others that do not.
What is true is that the provincial liberals have increased infrastructure investment. Unfortunately, the great majority of it is not destined for downtown Toronto, and fault for that lies with all levels of government. Some of the problems are due to a lack of concern from all levels of government with the growth needs of downtown. The feds have started the DRL money pot, but this clearly should have been done years ago.
On the other hand, the City has chosen to spend a huge amount of money on the Gardiner East, serving the needs of very few. The same could be said of the Scarborough subway, or the UPX. So it isn't simply a question of money, but also of priorities.
I don't have extensive knowledge of water and sewer needs, but certainly there is ongoing, multi-year major investment all over the city - supported, I might add, by increases in our taxes specifically for water delivery. So there are actually areas where we are taking action, and despite reports of concern with sewers, my understanding is that water infrastructure is in relatively good shape.
Then there is the swollen parks fund, which has sat mostly unused - the City failed to buy properties in anticipation of the uptick in density. So in some cases we have money, but aren't spending it.
But many of the fixes do not require huge sums, just planning. This is where a comprehensive zoning rethink, or a building code reform, would come into play. The same goes for things like providing transit priority, which I am happy to say is finally happening on King. However, I've been waiting years for the John Street revitalization, the Yonge remake, etc. - and we have had slow movement on bike lanes and pedestrianized spaces compared to peer jurisdictions. These actions cost little, but add up to the long term revitalized whole.
To be sure, money is needed. But there are so many moving parts.
salsa
Senior Member
A Star article today talked about how the various hotel redevelopments in Toronto could threaten up to 2,000 jobs and hurt the tourism industry. It cites the Chelsea Hotel as an example, which plans to retain only 20% of its hotel rooms when it gets redeveloped. There will be a report this fall that will provide a review Toronto's hotel capacity and potential impact of condo development.
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...opments-threaten-hundreds-of-hotel-jobs-.html
http://www.metronews.ca/news/toront...opments-threaten-hundreds-of-hotel-jobs-.html
maestro
Senior Member
I just don't think this delves deep enough by blaming condo development. What's the impact of airbnb and executive suites services on hotel properties? How many new 3, 4 , 5 star hotel units have been built in the past decade and are planned over the next decade? New properties get built while old ones close.
We'll see if the Eaton closes and the wrecking balls show up. It's definitely not a forgone conclusion.
We'll see if the Eaton closes and the wrecking balls show up. It's definitely not a forgone conclusion.
ksun
Senior Member
It is a private investment. And those companies have the right to keep no matter how many employees they deem appropriate, and during what period, as long as it doesn't breach any contract.
and I highly doubt redevelopment of one hotel is going to affect the tourism industry. And Airbnb can always fill the gap.
salsa
Senior Member
It's not just one hotel. There are at least 8 major ones that will disappear. I doubt Airbnb will replace all of that, and it certainly won't replace the jobs that will be lost.
buildup
Senior Member
Not so simple. If a shortage of hotel rooms emerges someone will build another hotel. If travelers shift to Airbnb the lost room service jobs will be replaced by restaurant jobs and chambermaids will be replaced by molly-maid since airbnb rooms are cleaned too. Its more restructuring.