Towered
Senior Member
Other cities have computers instead of planners? Who knew?!
Toronto FlyOver Canada | 25.02m | 4s | CLC | Sturgess
- Thread starter AlbertC
- Start date
Towered
Senior Member
I don't know about you, but I see countless new buildings going up all over Toronto...
Brands
Active Member
Then why is our planning department running company's like Fly Over Canada, out of Toronto?
Remember, this is private money, they are willing to invest, look how our city is treating them.
Remember, this is private money, they are willing to invest, look how our city is treating them.
taal
Senior Member
Just a simple question for you; Can you share the evidence you have that indicates what you're describing is indeed the case ? i.e. that they have patiently and quietly been waiting on the city for 3 years for a response on their final application vs they are still securing financing or contractors to drive the construction work or the plethora of other reasons that have nothing to do with the city ?
Brands
Active Member
In a conference call with analysis last year, Steven Moster the CEO of Viad Corp-which owns Fly Over Canada- complained about how long Toronto's
approval process was. He lamented that they are still going through the "approval process".
What Toronto needs to understand is that time=money. People are not going to wait around to spend their money. They will look for other places that are more welcoming. What hurts me most, is this is a private investment. No public money is being offered or requested.
approval process was. He lamented that they are still going through the "approval process".
What Toronto needs to understand is that time=money. People are not going to wait around to spend their money. They will look for other places that are more welcoming. What hurts me most, is this is a private investment. No public money is being offered or requested.
Northern Light
Superstar
1) You have no idea how long Planning processes in other cities take, you're making that very clear.
2) Right now, if a developer/proponent has done their homework, they can obtain their zoning in 4 months flat from date of application.
3) Site Plans will vary, but in general, planners are not being retentive when they hold up an SPA, it usually means there is a material deficiency.
4) The job of Buildings (permits) is first to insure that what you are building is entirely legal, and compliant with both the building and the fire code, and that it matches what you were approved for in zoning and site plan. If your working drawings are in order, permits can fly. We have builders in this city who get their permits within 2 weeks of getting planning permission. Because they had them ready, because they were careful to be accurate and compliant, and they were submitted in a timely way. They also have staff on retainer to make any urgent fixes required in a timely manner.
When you see permits sitting for months, in general, it means Buildings sent a notice saying 'this is not correct' ; and the building proponent has not got back to them. That's not the Buildings department's fault.
5) Files are submitted digitally for planning, no one is filing physical paper needlessly, I don't know how you think a 'digitization' will handle public consultation, answering phone calls and emails and dealing with a City Councillor's office or coordinating feedback from multiple City departments.........but for the record...........no Planning Department on the planet has 'automated' this process. You're off in the land Make Believe.
6) Finally, many of the nice planners make a lot more than $100,000, LOL They just got significant raises too, because the City kept losing them to the private sector who paid even more.
Last edited:
Brands
Active Member
I commend you for defending Toronto planning, but in this case you are dead wrong. Period. When you have the CEO of the company building this project
complaining about Toronto planning and the time it takes, you know something is wrong.
To put it in context for you, Fly Over Chicago was announced 2022, it is already under construction and is opening in 2024. This is the exact same
company building the Fly Over Toronto project.
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
Toronto Planning was deeply short staffed for a couple of years; which may (or may not) have impacted the timelines here.
That said, you're engaging in too much hyperbole.
Toronto is the fastest developing City in North America.
Clearly we don't lack for people wanting to build here.
Chicago, by the way, does not have that issue.
Brands
Active Member
I am sorry, I do buy that argument. When a company wants to invest in Toronto, and Toronto wants that investment, the city should do everything to
accommodate that company. That means setting timelines for planning approvals and building permits, to give the company investing in our city certainly of their investment.
There is no reason that Fly Over Chicago should be under construction before Fly Over Canada Toronto, when our project was announced three years before them.
Being the fastest developing city in North America has nothing to do with that.
When a company wants to invest in your city and create jobs, you do everything to can to make sure it happens to a timely manner.
Or the company will set up shop in another city.
Brands
Active Member
A major car company like Ford or Toyota says they want to build a car factory in Toronto, and employ 8000 people with pensions and benefits.
They don't want any public money, and the entire project is going to be privately financed.
If Toronto says we are the fastest growing city in North America, we are going to take our time with this project.
Do you know what these car companies and going to do? They are going to take their investment and put in into another city, that will get their
project under construction that same year.
Time=money.
This is not being hyperbole, this is stating the fact.
They don't want any public money, and the entire project is going to be privately financed.
If Toronto says we are the fastest growing city in North America, we are going to take our time with this project.
Do you know what these car companies and going to do? They are going to take their investment and put in into another city, that will get their
project under construction that same year.
Time=money.
This is not being hyperbole, this is stating the fact.
Northern Light
Superstar
I don't know that it does or does not; and neither do you. Research the issue, provide evidence, get back to the group.
Ultimately, I'm going to disagree here. Not all investment is good, not all buildings are good; and bad development can have serious adverse consequences to future development and to standard of living.
I'm all for being business-positive in a general sense; and for achieving excellence in civil service, including reasonable timeliness.
That said, I'm not for the bend over backwards for anyone with money argument. No sale here.
****
On that note, I will say, I will not continue this exchange further.
I think you're simply too extreme and insufficiently informed for a constructive exchange. Your arguments are fundamentally wrong as I see it, and I don't believe any amount of back and forth will resolve that.
Last edited:
Towered
Senior Member
CEO's are not infallible. This myth that the private sector is all knowing must be dispelled. Perhaps they made a mistake on their application that held it up - we don't know.
I've worked in the corporate private sector for years - I've seen many decisions made by higher ups that range from questionable to idiotic. *shrugs*
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Actually what I am really interested in is how long this facility - once opened - will last. It's rather gimmicky.
AoD
AoD
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...aquariums, towers and sport stadiums are timeless. FlyOvers seems already dated.
just east of the creek
Active Member
Time = Money is a very simplistic remark. As was much of the rest of the argument. I am with NL all the way on this one. And I am quite aware the municipal planning departments ( and other branches of municipal and regional governments) have been scrambling to retain staff.