Toronto East Harbour | 214.2m | 65s | Cadillac Fairview | Adamson

Well we are closer now than we were before:)

Amazon second headquarters race heats up
Analysts believe there could be one or even two more rounds of finalists before Amazon picks where to put its second headquarters. But there are some front-runners among the 20 candidate cities.

Toronto, the only non-U.S. city on the list, is an outlier with some significant pluses but also drawbacks, both related to President Trump's policies and pronouncements.

On the one hand, the United States' increasingly hard stance on immigration is making it tougher for companies to bring in top talent from around the world. Locating in Toronto would side-step those problems. Canada's immigration policies are very welcoming for highly educated individuals, which could help Amazon recruit global talent without running into U.S. professional visa restrictions.

Oddsmaker Bovada recently moved Toronto's odds from 20 to 1 to 5 to 1 because of the immigration issue, said Pat Morrow, the head oddsmaker for the company.

On the other, locating in Toronto could be seen as an attack on Trump, who has made increasing U.S. jobs — especially those that had been moved to other countries — a cornerstone of his platform.
http://www.13wmaz.com/article/news/...cond-headquarters-race-heats-up/507-547265170
 
**shakeshead** Trump is out in two years. The Republicans could lose the House in months. Immigration is a big thing but, it'll boil down to costs. Taxes, wages, benefits are some of the bigger things also in Toronto's favour.

Amazon is growing like a virus everywhere. That requires office space. The Vancouver expansion isn't the only one and shouldn't have any affect on the HQ2 campaign. I'm far less convinced HQ2 is a real thing.
 
Residential uses can be accommodated in all the lands surrounding East Harbour, of which, there is a lot.

East Harbour is meant to be an employment hub, like the Financial district. Residential use would take away sqft that would otherwise be used for office.
 
I couldn't disagree more. For one, the downtown core will eventually run out of suitable spaces for employment use, and when that day comes there need to be other areas of the city that can absorb that. Let's remember that not every large corporation/conglomerate is looking for space in a 200+ metre office tower. Medium-sized businesses also look for various type of spaces that will suit their needs, and are within reach of good public transit. Additionally with industrial land, the minute that you convert that land to mixed-use that land will never be suitable for industrial purposes again and it will be lost forever. And these days in Toronto, mixed-use is more likely to mean residential/retail use than residential/office. The only places we're seeing residential/office happen is in the downtown core proper, and in places where the city is forcing developers to replace office space where residential development is happening (ie: Yonge-Eglinton).

If you start taking employment land and start converting it to mixed use, the net affect will be a loss of zoned office/industrial space. Which would then take us to the question of: where would people work?
 
Amare said:
I couldn't disagree more. For one, the downtown core will eventually run out of suitable spaces for employment use, and when that day comes there need to be other areas of the city that can absorb that. Let's remember that not every large corporation/conglomerate is looking for space in a 200+ metre office tower. Medium-sized businesses also look for various type of spaces that will suit their needs, and are within reach of good public transit. Additionally with industrial land, the minute that you convert that land to mixed-use that land will never be suitable for industrial purposes again and it will be lost forever. And these days in Toronto, mixed-use is more likely to mean residential/retail use than residential/office. The only places we're seeing residential/office happen is in the downtown core proper, and in places where the city is forcing developers to replace office space where residential development is happening (ie: Yonge-Eglinton).

If you start taking employment land and start converting it to mixed use, the net affect will be a loss of zoned office/industrial space. Which would then take us to the question of: where would people work?
Click to expand...

I think there is some wiggle room, in so far as there is a desire in most business districts to have some 'animation' on the street.

But that can be addressed w/o residential zoning by allowing hotels and student residences.

A community college campus here would make sense blended w/the offices and if you have 500 students living in the area and 200 hotel guests, plus some entertainment amenities (great spot for a new multiplex) i think you can swing animation w/o overly broad zoning.

I would say, however, that given the need for affordable housing, I might open to a slight compromise on the separate parcel to the north abutting Eastern to expressly allow coops or non-profits on a small portion of the land and/or private rental agreeing to offer at or below average rents.

But I wouldn't make that concession on the primary block, I don't think its needed.
 
WislaHD said:
Residential uses can be accommodated in all the lands surrounding East Harbour, of which, there is a lot.
Click to expand...
Can they really, though? There is very little room for high-density residential to the north. (Anyone remember the saga of Riverside Towns, formerly Leslieville Lofts on Broadview?) To the east, the area between Eastern and Lake Shore is all employment lands, and the west is cut off by the Don, the rail yard, and Corktown Common. Realistically, the only area nearby that can accommodate significant new residential development is to the south, but that is all slated to be mid-rise. Mid-rise is great, but it's not going to go that far when you're looking at 11.5 million square feet of office next door.

WislaHD said:
East Harbour is meant to be an employment hub, like the Financial district. Residential use would take away sqft that would otherwise be used for office.
Click to expand...
Do we really need another Financial District though? I feel, and I think many planners would agree, that the employment-only CBD is a failed model. I think there's great value in having a primarily office-oriented hub, but even setting aside 10% of the square footage for residential uses would help turn this into a 24-hour neighbourhood.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top