Toronto

Clare R. Copeland Transformer Station | ?m | ?s | Toronto Hydro | IBI Group

whatever

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
162
You can't have a grievance over not getting something you never had a right to in the first place. It's Toronto Hydro's spot, not theirs. They thought they were going to get it, but they didn't. They wouldn't even have the 40% on offer if Toronto Hydro didn't hand it to them
 

CDL.TO

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
116
Location
Christie Pits
You can't have a grievance over not getting something you never had a right to in the first place. It's Toronto Hydro's spot, not theirs. They thought they were going to get it, but they didn't. They wouldn't even have the 40% on offer if Toronto Hydro didn't hand it to them
No one is denying that Hydro owns the spot. As with almost all heritage debates, the question being debated is "Should they do whatever they want (including negotiating in bad faith) just because they own the land?".
 

junctionist

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
8,227
Reaction score
1,316
Location
The Junction, Toronto
Toronto Hydro shouldn't even be manipulating a National Historic Site like this one for a concrete transformer station. The museum was an appropriate use for the building. People put a lot of work into making it happen with cooperation with the city and Toronto Hydro, and now Toronto Hydro simply reverses their position after so many years. Who would argue that turning a historic roundhouse with the highest historical designation in the country into a concrete transformer station is a good and logical idea? We don't have to undermine our heritage and culture in this way; it's our choice.
 

Northern Magus

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
886
Reaction score
0
You can't have a grievance over not getting something you never had a right to in the first place. It's Toronto Hydro's spot, not theirs. They thought they were going to get it, but they didn't. They wouldn't even have the 40% on offer if Toronto Hydro didn't hand it to them
Oh dear, not only have you missed the point twice, but you've clearly never heard of a legitimate expectation, now have you?

Simply put: they had the right to expect that Hydro's assurances were made in good faith.

EDIT:

Oh, speaking of expectations, one fellow once wrote this:

^ I apply different standards of expectations to the services that I receive at high-end vs mid-range restaurants. At a Swiss Chalet I'm expecting my food to come out warm, and my water glass to be refilled when empty. If I'm sitting down to a $200 meal the server had better be stepping it up in terms of clearing the table, timing the dishes, refilling that water glass before its empty, etc, etc etc.
Glad to see you can be so understanding. And in this situation, the argument being made is that different standards of expectations should reasonably be applied to the negotiating conduct of a public utility company (as opposed to, say, a sleaze merchant).

Or do you disagree?
 
Last edited:

whatever

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
162
How is that a legitimate expectation? Toronto Hydro offered to accommodate them, now it turns out they can't. Toronto Hydro's mandate is to provide infrastructure, not museums. They had nine other proposed sites shot down and this is what they're left with. This isn't bad faith negotiating because it was never negotiating in the first place. The museum people have a desire for that space (and I too would like to see a museum there), but the museum people have never had a claim on it. Or are you living in some kind of a fantasy world where really wanting something entails some sort of moral or legal desert?

And you seem to be confusing my differing degrees of expectation for your differing categories of expectation.
 

unimaginative2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
This is very disappointing. I'm certain that there's a way to build the transformer station without displacing the museum. Perhaps some of the bus parking lot could be used, or the park land/trail next to the Gardiner.

Adam Vaughan, of course, displays a characteristic cavalier cluelessness about electricity. He equally characteristically used the opportunity to slam one of the parts of his ward (Cityplace, in this case) that he doesn't appear to like representing. He just loves to pit bits of his ward against each other. This project is essential both because of the rapid growth across the Manby sector downtown (which is everything roughly west of Bay) and because the John Street station is aging and additional capacity is needed for it to receive the maintenance and rehabilitation it requires.

As a worst case scenario, we could think about more exotic solutions, like superconducting cables to allow a transformer station to be sited further from downtown. Another possibility would be to convert some of the Enwave stations to combined heat and power.
 

androiduk

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 3, 2008
Messages
6,757
Reaction score
942
Location
Yonge & Bloor
Application: Partial Permit Status: Not Started

Location: 25 REES ST
TORONTO ON

Ward 20: Trinity-Spadina

Application#: 11 329842 SHO 00 PP Accepted Date: Apr 23, 2012

Project: Other Partial Permit - Shoring

Description: Part Permit - Proposal to demolish existing building and construct new Transformer Station for Toronto Hydro Electric. The two storeys building is comprise of offices with three storey of mechanical equipment below grade. [See 255 Bremner Blvd. for SPA. 255 Bremner Blvd. lot has been severed] (Precinct Agreements)
 

Northern Magus

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 5, 2009
Messages
886
Reaction score
0
Since you keep missing the obvious, allow me to debunk each of your fatuous assertions point by point.

Toronto Hydro offered to accommodate them, now it turns out they can't.
Wrong. According to TRHA, TH didn't merely offer to "accommodate" them: prima facie, assurances were made that were far more substantive.

The relevent section from the TRHA webpage is this:

Due to the heritage and cultural significance of the site, meetings were held with the TRHA, the City of Toronto and Toronto Hydro to ensure that the site would not be adversely affected by the project.* Fully aware of the position and intent of the City of Toronto and the TRHA, Toronto Hydro stated that the transformer station would be an unmanned, underground station with the Machine Shop made available to the City of Toronto for museum purposes: indeed, Toronto Hydro maintained that the station would be built below grade until early 2011.
Clearly then, in the view of TRHA, assurances were given for an "unmanned, underground station" with no above ground part.

That's not what's happening, now is it?

Toronto Hydro's mandate is to provide infrastructure, not museums. They had nine other proposed sites shot down and this is what they're left with.
Irrelevant on both counts. The point being made is that, according to TRHA, assurances were given that (they feel) were misleading and potentially given in bad faith.

This isn't bad faith negotiating because it was never negotiating in the first place.
Oh really? Prima facie they were making representations about the subject-matter of a potential long-term lease (i.e. the space to be made available) with parties who at that time either had an interest in or were virtually certain to be their future tenant.

A requirement for good faith would appear to me to be beyond dispute.

the museum people have never had a claim on it.
Irrelevant -- no one is contesting the title to the land or the existence of a formal lease. But what's fascinating is how you keep willingly overlooking both the conduct and the assurances alleged to have been made by the other party.

Or are you living in some kind of a fantasy world where really wanting something entails some sort of moral or legal desert?
Awwwww is wittle baby getting squawky? He sure is! And he sure seems like he's too caught up in his own "arts/cultural groups are thankless, whiny, unsatisfiable pinkos" meme to pay attention to what's really being discussed.

And you seem to be confusing my differing degrees of expectation for your differing categories of expectation.
Yawn. Y'know, equivocation is the weakest refuge for those in the wrong. But by all means, go knock yourself out.
 
Last edited:

whatever

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 25, 2007
Messages
2,541
Reaction score
162
Since you keep missing the obvious, allow me to debunk each of your fatuous assertions point by point...
All that I've gotten out of that is that you don't understand what prima facie (or equivocation, for that matter) means, you prefer to flame rather than address anything substantively, and you've some sort of condition that induces selective reading.
 

gristle

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
2,314
Reaction score
3
Adam Vaughan, of course, displays a characteristic cavalier cluelessness about electricity. He equally characteristically used the opportunity to slam one of the parts of his ward (Cityplace, in this case) that he doesn't appear to like representing. He just loves to pit bits of his ward against each other. This project is essential both because of the rapid growth across the Manby sector downtown (which is everything roughly west of Bay) and because the John Street station is aging and additional capacity is needed for it to receive the maintenance and rehabilitation it requires.
Vaughan doesn't pit parts of his wards against each other. On the basis of speaking to him, his issue with Cityplace is the poor planning of the land by Concord and not the people living there. If the area was to be developed, infrastructure should have been considered first, and not as a follow-up development as it being treated now.
 

unimaginative2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,554
Reaction score
3
Location
New York
Vaughan doesn't pit parts of his wards against each other. On the basis of speaking to him, his issue with Cityplace is the poor planning of the land by Concord and not the people living there. If the area was to be developed, infrastructure should have been considered first, and not as a follow-up development as it being treated now.
Well he doesn't have much knowledge of the history of the project, then. Thousands of pages of environmental impact studies, infrastructure studies and other planning studies were carried out for the Cityplace development. It is far more "planned" than the average development in the city. I'm not certain that this is a good thing, but it's a fact.

This transformer station is not coming by surprise because we built Cityplace without thinking about the consequences to the electrical grid. The Bremner station has been planned since well before Cityplace was a gleam in Li Ka-Shing's eye.
 

Automation Gallery

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 5, 2007
Messages
11,752
Reaction score
2,089
Location
South Parkdale
And here i thought this was already under construction

Downtown Toronto could face major blackout without new Bremner transformer station
An equipment failure at a key hydro station in the city core could cut power in Toronto’s financial district for “days, possibly weeks,” Toronto Hydro says.

That’s why it needs to spend $195 million to build the new Bremner transformer station near the Rogers Centre, the company argues in filings to the Ontario Energy Board.

But critics say there’s a better solution that includes curbing power consumption in the city core, along with constructing small, efficient power stations producing electricity right where it’s needed.
http://www.thestar.com/business/article/1310160--downtown-blackout-could-last-weeks-toronto-hydro-warns
 

Top