Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

“We are really just in the early process of formulating ideas but the notion is that if you can actually act as a catalyst to the creation of value in order to get paid back for playing that role you have to capture some of the value that is actually created and that might come in the form of a share of the increase in property taxes that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred but for the investment,” he said.
This is really just a basic P3 model, it's not that complicated. Think of how often P3 consortiums build bridges and get repaid through 30 years of access to the tolls on the bridge. It's the same sort of thing.
This is the point! But Sidewalk have blown the way to approach this. As to why is puzzling.

There's a brilliant new tool to do this ('new' by Canadian standards): The Infrastructure Bank. Sidewalk could have gotten massive accolades by announcing (albeit the latest news was a leak, but none-the-less, gotten in front of the story) "We are going to approach the Infrastructure Bank with a large infusion of cash to form a consortium to build the needed transit in the Port Lands and adjacent area. We invite the Federal, Provincial and Civic govt's to match our funds, or provide support in any other way".

I would have been one of their most ardent supporters! AND I'd vociferously state: "Hey, they took the initiative to do what others aren't, and show a way forward for this sad town and province, they should receive income from their investment and continued ownership.".

Somehow they completely blew this. And that is troubling. It's like someone uninvited breaking down your back door to feed your dog. Doctoroff especially should know better, being number 2 at NYCity. This is not how you do things, especially in someone else's nation.

This remains a massive blunder until they 'get their priorities straight' on how to do this. Their going to the InfraBank for this and other aspects would have been a challenge for others to follow, and in my mind, a gracious way of 'throwing down the gauntlet' aimed at Ford. It would also have have stretched the perimeters WT have arbitrarily set (a whole discussion in itself) in such a way that WT couldn't have said no. It's puzzling...
 
Last edited:
There are plenty of construction workers. The problem isn't that the city can't find a contractor - it's that the city can't find the money. It's an accounting issue. The physical construction process itself will be just as long - but Sidewalk Labs will be able to get it started much quicker - meaning that the city can reap the benefits much quicker.
But what is the trade off? We're turning over a large portion of Toronto's future residential area to the leading firm in surveillance capitalism?
 
But what is the trade off? We're turning over a large portion of Toronto's future residential area to the leading firm in surveillance capitalism?
Good question. I guess we'll have to wait to see the full proposal and better understand the gains on both side, before jumping to dramatic comments like "the leading firm in surveillance capitalism".
 
But what is the trade off? We're turning over a large portion of Toronto's future residential area to the leading firm in surveillance capitalism?
We aren't turning over anything - that's the point. It remains in public ownership upon completion.

Obviously what Sidewalk Labs does on its own sites is up to itself, just like any other developer.

It's not like Sidewalk is proposing to own all the infrastructure afterwards and run the area as its own little fiefdom.
 
dramatic comments like "the leading firm in surveillance capitalism".
It's not intended to be dramatic, but simply factual. How do you think Google makes money? It surreptitiously monitors, collects and sells our online activity to anyone who's willing to pay.

I work for a consumer packaged goods company with strong brands, and we pay Google every month for analytics that they collect on how people interact with our brand and for that matter any category of online activity we want to pay for. I don't mean to sound like some tinfoil beanie hatted paranoid, and I understand it's meta data, not down to the person, but we need to be wary of big American data-collection tech firms getting involved in probably the highest potential waterfront brownfield real estate deal in North America.
 
Last edited:
You can be aware but also take the money if it gets something done. Would I let a company like Google build an LRT along Queens Quay East in return for them getting a share of property taxes from Monde, Sugar Wharf etc? Depending on the deal I certainly would. Clearly the governments in charge are having trouble finding the money so why not look at private funding.
 
Hume is just one of many voices, an 'architecture critic' (writer) who is no more qualified on this issue than the rest of people opining and editorializing it.
 
Depending on the deal I certainly would. Clearly the governments in charge are having trouble finding the money so why not look at private funding.
This is the hard truth for a lot of projects pending. Do I like it? Feelings don't matter. It's the present reality and going to be a point of contention if we get things built or not.

Many countries have already accepted this, and have a lot more modern and efficient infrastructure as a result. Oz, UK, many EU nations, Eastern Asia...the list goes on.

The question isn't if we have to start accepting more Private Enterprise, the question is how, and how to 'get in front of it' to get the best situation for the public.

How many people actually own their homes? Bit of a trick question, Brits will say (and quite honestly) "The bank does". Canadians will answer "I do". What is common to both is that they're using private capital to gain a 'good'. And there's a massive amount of capital available to do that with.

In the absence of public monies being available to develop the Port Lands, it stands to reason that if the desire is to develop it (and I have some caveats to that, but that's beside the point) and Private Investment wants to do it, then the best way to satisfy all is to look for solutions with what's presented.

I do think the way Sidewalk has approached this is beyond clumsy. But I also think the way WT has couched the situation is also awkward.

We now have the Infrastructure Bank in Canada, attuned for situations exactly like this. It will allow maximum benefit for all and if done under the umbrella of a federal agency such that the light of day shines in far more, then the legitimate fears of many about Sidewalk's present proposal are better addressed. Sidewalk doesn't have a good record of handling this well. Secrecy and stealth have been their modus operandi. Here's an opportunity to take a step back, everyone take a step back, and examine a better way to do this.

I honestly think from what we know so far that Sidewalk should approach this more along the lines of the way any large developer would, and be open to the standard (albeit somewhat wanting also) process of application.

Addendum: On transit, Sidewalk could score a massive goal "For the People" by scooping the responsibility, let alone the capital investment needed, for building transit not just in the Port Lands, but for all of Ontario by pioneering the use of the Can Infrastructure Bank to build needed transit infrastructure (one of the prime raisin d'etres for the Bank) by being, at least initially, the prime investor in a scheme to build it for the Port Lands. Other investors will follow! And Sidewalk would be a champion in public eyes, not a shadowy figure. The Feds would be very favourable to invest also, it would 'seed' the Bank's purpose, as well as also showing the flag to the public, and if possible, the Bank could apply for a 'federal charter' for the project. It's "For the general advantage of Canada" and thus eligible under various Acts (Transportation, Railway, etc) and Section 92 of the Constitution.

Ontario would also be welcome to participate...but that's a whole other discussion at this point in time. The point is that Sidewalk have some excellent cards to play. The ones they've laid down already won't win. They have the ones that will still in their hands. They might need better counsel in how to play them.

The advantage of being "federally chartered" means that the Province has no claim or authority to impose jurisdiction on the consortium/corporation. Amongst other things, this would greatly help attracting capital to a project, especially a transit one. QP at this time is very unpredictable (I'm being diplomatic) and investors need stability.

See: https://www.iisd.org/sites/default/...astructure-banks-solutions-best-practices.pdf
 
Last edited:
Further to ^:

Globe and Mail subscriber only headline up a few hours back:
Developer Stephen Diamond leading contender to chair Waterfront Toronto amid leadership shakeup

I'm loathe to quote more than fair doctrine at this time, non-subscription copy will show from other sources soon, but this is crucial to extend the point above on the Infrastructure Bank:
The board has undergone a number of changes since December’s firings. Councillor Joe Cressy replaced Denzil Minnan-Wong, who publicly criticized aspects of project, after his term ended in December. The terms of two other city-appointed directors − Mohamed Dhanani, an adviser in Ryerson University’s president’s office, and Susie Henderson, an infrastructure expert with consultants GHD Advisory – end in April.

Infrastructure Canada, the federal department overseeing the agency, declined to say that Mr. Diamond would be named the new chair, but confirmed that it was working with both the provincial and municipal governments collaboratively to name an independent chair. Ontario’s Infrastructure Ministry did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Don Peat, a spokesman for Mr. Tory, declined to comment on what he called speculation about the appointment.
[...]

Two Sidewalk 'mid execs' were dispatched to Ottawa to discuss matters with 'the Feds'. I don't have reference handy, will edit it in later when found, but it's curious that of all levels, they go to the Federal one first, even though WT is chartered provincially. It may or may not indicate something newsworthy, perhaps something along the lines of what I've proposed above?

Searching for that reference, I tripped across this article I'd missed in the Globe, also subscription, so I'll quote sparingly:
Federal staff were advised to press Sidewalk Labs CEO on IP concerns at October dinner

JOSH O’KANETECHNOLOGY REPORTER
PUBLISHED JANUARY 17, 2019
[...]
The company’s head of policy Micah Lasher, who was at the dinner, told The Globe that he did not remember whether the subject (edit: IP concerns) was discussed. Mr. Lasher said that if it was, the CEO would have explained that “Quayside should be an epicentre of innovation by Canadian companies, and also, intellectual property that the public sector has a role in giving rise to should result in financial benefits for the public sector.”

While the federal government has kept its concerns private, Waterfront Toronto’s other two government stakeholders have expressed worry about the project’s direction. In December, Doug Ford’s Ontario government fired its three directors on the agency’s board over frustrations with the agency’s governance in connection with the Sidewalk partnership. And in October, Toronto Mayor John Tory said he had “acute concern” over the transparency of Sidewalk and Waterfront Toronto’s partnership so far, and that the process of bringing Sidewalk Labs to Toronto “was not handled the best way.” [...]

Legitimate concerns, much discussed in these UT strings, but the bigger picture is still missing! If Sidewalk wants to do something 'far beyond' the mandate already set with WT, why hasn't counsel been offered as to a legitimate and meaningful way of doing this? Sidewalk have an oyster!

Perhaps this might be cathartic in getting Sidewalk to approach this in a completely different way? And I highly suggest using the perfectly apt Infrastructure Bank. It immediately adds legitimacy and legal tools to Sidewalk's LRT transit aspirations. Far better the InfraBank applies for Section 92 status than an entity foreign to Parliamentary waters. The term "street railway" still has a quaint and legal ring to it.

SCC cases as recently as 1948 (there might be even more recent references) ruled on the status:

Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, [1948] SCR 373, 1948 CanLII 18 (SCC)
Date:1948-04-27
Other citations:[1950] AC 123; [1948] 3 DLR 417
Citation:Canadian Pacific Railway Co. v. Attorney-General of British Columbia, [1948] SCR 373, 1948 CanLII 18 (SCC), <http://canlii.ca/t/21v4r>
[...]
It was next contended that the hotel had been declared to be for the general advantage of Canada so as to bring it within clause (c) of head 10 of section 92, and reliance was placed upon sections 5 and 6 of the present Railway Act, R.S.C. 1927, chapter 170. Section 5 provides in effect that the Act shall apply to all persons, railway companies and railways (with certain exceptions) within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada, and section 6 enacts that the provisions of the Act shall, without limiting the effect of section 5, extend and apply to

(c) every railway or portion thereof *** and every railway or portion thereof now or hereafter so owned, controlled, leased or operated shall be deemed and is hereby deemed to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.

We were then referred to subsection 21 of section 2 of the Railway Act:—

(21) "railway" means any railway which the company has authority to construct or operate, and includes all branches, extensions, sidings, stations, depots, wharves, rolling stock, equipment, stores, property real or personal and works connected therewith, and also any railway bridge, tunnel or other structure which the company is authorized to construct; and, except where the context is inapplicable, includes street railway and tramway;
[...]

" includes street railway and tramway" There are many other references from the SCC and present and previous Acts of Parliament.

Sidewalk is railing up the wrong tree with 'a cut of the tax' approach. There's no legal basis for doing so even if the request was favoured. Go in the front door fully announced and bold! Your ticket in? The wad of cash in your hand! And make an offer they can't refuse. And it's almost inevitably through the InfraBank to keep 'political interference' at bay. (Dare I add? And an end run around the Ford Station Wrecker)
 
Last edited:
Project: Port Lands Zoning Review and PIC Core Urban Design Guidelines

Community Consultation Meeting #1

Date:
March 21, 2019

Time: 7:00 pm – 9:00 pm

Location: Ralph Thornton Community Centre

765 Queens Street East, Toronto, ON M4M 1H3
 
I just don’t know what the big rush is. Time not money is the primary negotiation lever. We the public have all the time in the world to develop the land. Large master planned communities are the silliest failed experience in city building everywhere in the world.

Here’s a novel approach. Master plan nothing. Put in basic city services and standard lot divisions of 25’ x 130’. Sell off the lots at market value using a lottery system. Prohibit lot assembly in excess of 5 lots. No negotiations with large corporations and developers, no social engineering exercises. Press play. Result: probably better than anything you could design.
 
I just don’t know what the big rush is. Time not money is the primary negotiation lever. We the public have all the time in the world to develop the land. Large master planned communities are the silliest failed experience in city building everywhere in the world.

Here’s a novel approach. Master plan nothing. Put in basic city services and standard lot divisions of 25’ x 130’. Sell off the lots at market value using a lottery system. Prohibit lot assembly in excess of 5 lots. No negotiations with large corporations and developers, no social engineering exercises. Press play. Result: probably better than anything you could design.
And should we want to, utilize a TIF district ourselves, for public benefit rather than for a private corporation.

The idea of a TIF to build out that infrastructure is not a bad one. It just doesn't need to be SWL benefiting from it, using experimental, proprietary infrastructure.
 
Here’s a novel approach. Master plan nothing. Put in basic city services and standard lot divisions of 25’ x 130’. Sell off the lots at market value using a lottery system. Prohibit lot assembly in excess of 5 lots. No negotiations with large corporations and developers, no social engineering exercises. Press play. Result: probably better than anything you could design.
It's not even novel, this small parcel urbanism is the way cities were built in the past, and are still grown in the developing world with varying levels of control.

2013_11_16_f1244_it2418Star_640.jpg

State of the outlying districts as seen in the Fairbank area of York Township, ca. 1911. From the City of Toronto Archives, Fonds 1244, Item 2418.

There is a reason why people see places even like favelas as vibrant and socially dynamic, despite their impoverishment, poor built form, paucity of infrastructure and high crime rates. It's also a reason why Toronto's most vibrant neighbourhoods tend to be the ones that retain a lot of separately owned main street parcels.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top