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

You give the Fords too much credit ;) , I bet they both believe and hope it can be sold off in a short time period. I bet neither has any clue on what it will take to see any plan reach completion in the dockland. It will be a 10 -25 year build and I honeslty don't think they understand that. All they will do with their plan is derail what we've already started and put us back another 2-5 years until we see anything happen.
 
Regardless of the new proposal's merits, or lack thereof, changes to the waterfront plan is not something we need right now. There has been plan after plan after plan for the Toronto waterfront since the 1960s, and every time the wind changes direction the previous plan has been torn up in favour of something new. If we're ever to get the waterfront that we've been wanting for so long, this cycle has to stop. This should be reason enough to oppose what is happening right now. I work in product development, and know full well that if you keep making changes to your design, you never release a final product. At some point you have to freeze your design and move on with what you've got.
 
Marko said:
If they do somehow succeed in having everything put under the city's control and do proceed in selling - it's highly unlikely that it's all auctioned off in short order. A lot of work would need to be done before even the key pieces could be sold, let alone the 1000+ acres. When you consider that the property will increase in value over time, but also increase in value as it becomes cleaned up and development begins, it would make a lot more sense to sell a little at a time over the next decade or more. What if it could generate a billion a year for the next 10 years - would that change your view of how it impacts the city's bottom line and what could be done with those revenues? And that's just the property itself and not the eventual property taxes, business taxes, development fees, etc...
Click to expand...

Marko, you're once again defending the Fords' plan by basically saying that they'll do EXACTLY what Waterfront Toronto IS doing. So... why change horses mid-stream? The 'things have been too slow' horseshit is just for people who have not been paying attention. What's the real reason? I think those that point to the Hearn lease or the potential for quick sales to raise cash for other projects or both are correct. The Fords looked around the city and said, "What can we sell to raise cash?" and the Portlands was top of the list.
 
ttk77 said:
I work in product development, and know full well that if you keep making changes to your design, you never release a final product. At some point you have to freeze your design and move on with what you've got.
Click to expand...
This describes me also. Picking a design and moving with what you have is usually the best way to proceed since that product will generate the revenues and interest in other products or improvements that will follow. Thing is, if you have no means to bring the products to market because say, tooling costs are above and beyond what you can afford, you have to look at doing things differenty. I realize the portlands have no timeframe in terms of potentially losing a market window of opportunity, but if a business is sitting on ideas and capability that is under used simply because of resources. You can licence or sell off one of your patents to finance your new product line (for example), or bring in investors that you know will expect a return on their expense but will actually make something happen instead of leaving perfectly good opportunities sitting on the shelf for some indeterminate day when you will have the time and money to get to them.

Hypothetical... what if Ford was willing to take the WT plan and run with it under TPLC, would that be OK?



Riverdale Rink Rat said:
Marko, you're once again defending the Fords' plan by basically saying that they'll do EXACTLY what Waterfront Toronto IS doing. So... why change horses mid-stream? The 'things have been too slow' horseshit is just for people who have not been paying attention. What's the real reason? I think those that point to the Hearn lease or the potential for quick sales to raise cash for other projects or both are correct. The Fords looked around the city and said, "What can we sell to raise cash?" and the Portlands was top of the list.
Click to expand...
It's not changing horses mid-stream, it's changing horses at the near shore. One horse has figured out how to cross and know one day it will, but no one knows when. The other horse might splash around a little, but is eager to take you to the other side. Whether there's a lump of sugar waiting for the horse at the other end is secondary to the fact that you'll be at the other side before the first horse has decided it has grazed the near shore grass long enough.
 
Last edited:
Marko said:
This describes me also. Picking a design and moving with what you have is usually the best way to proceed since that product will generate the revenues and interest in other products or improvements that will follow. Thing is, if you have no means to bring the products to market because say, tooling costs are above and beyond what you can afford, you have to look at doing things differenty. I realize the portlands have no timeframe in terms of potentially losing a market window of opportunity, but if a business is sitting on ideas and capability that is under used simply because of resources. You can licence or sell off one of your patents to finance your new product line (for example), or bring in investors that you know will expect a return on their expense but will actually make something happen instead of leaving perfectly good opportunities sitting on the shelf for some indeterminate day when you will have the time and money to get to them.
Click to expand...

And what you describe is pretty much how Waterfront Toronto was planning to finance the redevelopment. Remediate the land and then sell off portions of it to developers to cover the costs. Ford's plan would necessarily use the same funding mechanism since the city doesn't have the money to fund the entire project by themselves, the difference being that Ford wants to sell it off now before all the work is done, thus providing a much less valuable product for sale. As others have pointed out, there's no reason that parts of Ford's vision can't be contained within the framework of the existing WT plan. The millions of dollars already spent on planning and EAs don't need to be wasted.

Marko said:
Hypothetical... what if Ford was willing to take the WT plan and run with it under TPLC, would that be OK?
Click to expand...

Why bother? Expediency? There's no reason why WT couldn't expedite in the same way as TPLC would, and WT already has a good track record of doing excellent work on the waterfront. TPLC does not. Why fix what's not broken?
 
At times like these it's worth recalling that TEDCO (TPLC of yesterday) controlled that land for literally a generation. They did jack all with it beyond parking lots, if memory serves. WT has had full authority for a little over 3 years. This almost sounds like TEDCO's convinced the Fords they can do a better job so they don't get the axe in the upcoming budget reviews. Not to mention the convenient 'focus' on the Hearn lands http://ylife.news.yorku.ca/2011/05/05/york-profs-research-on-developer-donations-looks-at-mayor-ford/.

Also, has anyone figured out what the google search term the consultant used to generate the map that Matt Elliot screencapped off the video? http://fordfortoronto.mattelliott.ca/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/portlands26.jpg . It looks like s/he just counted the dots that google map generated in order to determine the circles' radii?
 
ttk77 said:
There has been plan after plan after plan for the Toronto waterfront since the 1960s, and every time the wind changes direction the previous plan has been torn up in favour of something new.QUOTE]

Is this in fact normal for such waterfront developments? Why does it seem that other cities such as Chicago, Seattle and even Milwaukee are able to develop a plan and just get it done.
Click to expand...
 
Bogtrotter said:
Is this in fact normal for such waterfront developments? Why does it seem that other cities such as Chicago, Seattle and even Milwaukee are able to develop a plan and just get it done.
Click to expand...
I'm not overly familiar with how things have gone in Chicago or Milwaukee.

But your using Seattle as an example of developing a plan and just getting it done! Really? With all the gyrations in Seattle over the last 60 years?
 
Bogtrotter said:
Is this in fact normal for such waterfront developments? Why does it seem that other cities such as Chicago, Seattle and even Milwaukee are able to develop a plan and just get it done.
Click to expand...

The ability of WT to get this done is not in question here. They had simply prioritized it lower than the central waterfront area and chose to tackle it after that was done rather than do it concurrently.

I can't speak to the situation in the other cities you mentioned, but the lands in question here are heavily contaminated. Fixing that won't be a quick job, and it has to be done first.
 
Last edited:
Here's a table on who voted for what regarding this issue, and a link to the accompanying interpretive article.

TOCouncil-Scorecard-Port-Lands1.png


http://fordfortoronto.mattelliott.ca/2011/09/07/scorecard-port-lands/

If the Ford Plan goes ahead, that should be the full-colour side elevation (with coloured glass and text) or the first view-blocking condo that goes up down there.
 
ttk77 said:
The ability of WT to get this done is not in question here. They had simply prioritized it lower than the central waterfront area and chose to tackle it after that was done rather than do it concurrently.

I can't speak to the situation in the other cities you mentioned, but the lands in question here are heavily contaminated. Fixing that won't be a quick job, and it has to be done first.
Click to expand...

It is worth remembering that the priorities of WT are set by its Board - on which the City is well represented (at least numerically). David Miller used to be one of our reps, the Fords are not.
 
I wouldn't put any faith in Gary Crawford breaking rank. (He's my local councillor.) He'll be happy to support everything Ford in exchange for their pats on the head with the dopey painted bike project and being invited to play drums at their bbq.
 
Bogtrotter said:
Is this in fact normal for such waterfront developments? Why does it seem that other cities such as Chicago, Seattle and even Milwaukee are able to develop a plan and just get it done.
Click to expand...

Seattle's plans date back to the 60s and Milwaukee has not redeveloped as much land as what WT is planning to do.
 
Fair enough, but Seattle's waterfont is now completed is it not? It seems, certainly to the layman, that projects and plans get undone here more than elsewhere. My enquiry speaks more to the long and failed history surrounding developing the waterfront here, which someone else on here alluded to- why so long and contentious? Given the broader history of waterfront development it seems to have taken an inordinately long time to address even small parcels on the central waterfront.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top