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

[denfromoakvillemilton]

The stadium is not part of this 'vision.'

Which is the other point to make to this thread: be careful in interpreting these photos as anything more than an advanced game of Sim City. It's nowhere close to being detailed enough to be called a 'plan', and its creators have said as much.

True. I bet Ford will want the Downsview lands at some point for the stadium. And the plan does look a little sim city

 

[Tuscani01]

Taking a closer look at what? the renderdoodle we've been shown? No one has said any of this can or will be built. This is not a plan, and is subject to whatever changes Rob and Doug think of once it's taken over by the city.

So the trick is to get Waterfrontoronto involved in this plan, and let them build it out. The Ford's get their way, Waterfrontoronto stays in the picture to make sure everything is fair and transparent, and everybody wins.

 

[44 North]

But... I like it. Its everything I wanted to see in the Portlands. I was never a fan of the winning design because it ripped up the unique features of the Portlands that make them the Portlands - The canals. This plan embraces the canals, lining them with promenades and development that can support shops, cafes and much more.

WT's designs never ripped up the "canals". The Keating Channel was to remain as-is. And the shipping channel was to remain as-is. The only thing that differs between the two plans is that WT's had an estuary for the Don.

Their plan also included promenades along the channels. The existing waterfront features were never going to be "ripped up".

 

[Dilla]

So the trick is to get Waterfrontoronto involved in this plan, and let them build it out. The Ford's get their way, Waterfrontoronto stays in the picture to make sure everything is fair and transparent, and everybody wins.

That would be a neat trick. I don't get the impression the Fords are big fans of oversight. Let's not forget how this "vision" came to be, behind closed doors without input from anyone who might question Doug.

 

[ttk77]

Does anyone know how this is playing out in the right-wing media (ie: National Post, Toronto Sun)? It's all anger and rage in The Star, even in the comments sections, but I haven't been paying too much attention to other papers.

 

[GraphicMatt]

As mentioned in your blog, the WT wasn't much more than that either. The buildings are simple placeholders for something that could be, while the important things to look at are the street plan, transit plan, public space and parkland - things the city does actually have control over.

The WT plan has a completed EA and has gone through hundreds of hours of consultation. The TPLC vision didn't exist until three months ago when their board awarded a sole-source contract behind closed doors to a design firm and said "go nuts." They're not even in the same universe.

I think if we look at the key design elements in either, they are both heavily focused on high density, mixed used development with a heavy focus on being pedestrian and recreation friendly. The differences are the way the flood plain is addressed, the location and amount of parkland, and the inclusion of the attention getters that are probably the keys to getting shovels in the ground. If you strip away the frills, I think some of the design elements of the new vision are actually preferable to the old vision, while the type of transit and amount of shoreline greenspace is preferable from the old one.

The only differences worth noting are the different strategies for the river and flood protection. TPLC keeps the street grid largely in tact, too, which is cheaper but maybe not desirable.

As far as shovels in the ground go, the only developer who's on the record as expressing interest is the Australian company who wants to build the mall.

The Ford plan may actually have just as much parkland overall, but it's spread out in narrower bands than large expanses. To be honest, I'd probably look to sacrifice a half block of development on either side of the new north-south park allowing it to be expanded, then allow for slightly higher structures to line the sides of it as these would be more sought after by eventual buyers, a la Central Park in NY.

Also taking a closer look, it seems the 'mall' is entirely outdoors and has some sort of criss-cross overhead element (borrowing from Pritzker, maybe), but which may also allow it to be covered in the winter?

The mall is just someone having fun with a rendering program. It's not an actual design.

Here's the thing: this isn't about two competing visions. If it was, the Fords would be open to sitting down with Waterfront Toronto and making adjustments to the current plan for the Port Lands. That they seem bound and determined to pull this land back into city hands means that they're hoping to make quick money off the sale of this land before its maximum value is reached.

 

[Marko]

Here's the thing: this isn't about two competing visions. If it was, the Fords would be open to sitting down with Waterfront Toronto and making adjustments to the current plan for the Port Lands. That they seem bound and determined to pull this land back into city hands means that they're hoping to make quick money off the sale of this land before its maximum value is reached.

I don't disagree with this - but since property value is pretty much always going up - you could always be saying "it will be worth more later" and putting off the sale in perpetuity. At some point you have to say the timing is right and go forward.

Say they are sufficiently reigned in and in the end, only sell off say, 30% of the land to cover the costs of any new EAs, flood plain requirements, remediation and whatever shortfall the city may have after belt tightening ($400 million?) and get somewhere around $2 billion for that land. They still hold the remaining property worth billions more and can spread out the sale of those lands at a futher 10% per yer so the sale spans 8 years in total as the valu of the property is increased by the redevlopment itself. This spreads out the development timelines and creates a very large revenue stream for almost a decade that not only pushes portlands development further, but likely generates revenues that can be allocated to other large ticket infrastructure that everyone wants - like more WT completions, higher order transit expansion, etc...

It should not be done to articifically keep property taxes low, though. Those should increase at the rate of inflation at minimum - but I think as long as the right controls are put in place and the vision can be adjusted to the approval of a larger number of stakeholders, then why wait?

 

[Thanos]

I don't disagree with this - but since property value is pretty much always going up - you could always be saying "it will be worth more later" and putting off the sale in perpetuity. At some point you have to say the timing is right and go forward.

Eh no, real estate does not work like that, prices do not always go up.
It seems 20 & 30 year olds who have never fully experienced a real estate crash believe that real estate always goes up and never comes tumbling down.

 

[GraphicMatt]

I don't disagree with this - but since property value is pretty much always going up - you could always be saying "it will be worth more later" and putting off the sale in perpetuity. At some point you have to say the timing is right and go forward.

Say they are sufficiently reigned in and in the end, only sell off say, 30% of the land to cover the costs of any new EAs, flood plain requirements, remediation and whatever shortfall the city may have after belt tightening ($400 million?) and get somewhere around $2 billion for that land. They still hold the remaining property worth billions more and can spread out the sale of those lands at a futher 10% per yer so the sale spans 8 years in total as the valu of the property is increased by the redevlopment itself. This spreads out the development timelines and creates a very large revenue stream for almost a decade that not only pushes portlands development further, but likely generates revenues that can be allocated to other large ticket infrastructure that everyone wants - like more WT completions, higher order transit expansion, etc...

It should not be done to articifically keep property taxes low, though. Those should increase at the rate of inflation at minimum - but I think as long as the right controls are put in place and the vision can be adjusted to the approval of a larger number of stakeholders, then why wait?

The whole reason Waterfront Toronto was created was because a phased holistic approach to all the available waterfront land would create maximum value. You can see the domino effect at work already, where Corus (w/ Sugar Beach) led to George Brown led to Hines. The land value goes up and becomes more desirable as milestones are reached.

The argument that TPLC will be faster appears to be false, as the powers-that-be admitted we're looking at fifteen years for their full build-out, and that's an optimistic estimate. Since no one even asked Waterfront Toronto what an accelerated timeline would look like for them, it's hard to say what their best-case scenario timeline is, but I'd bet it's comparable. Nothing is going to happen in the Port Lands in the near-term under either plan.

Except for maybe a mall. Smart Centres or RioCan could have something up and running down there within the year.

That's what I'm trying to figure out here: what's the business case for removing these lands from Waterfront Toronto? The "It'll lead to development faster!" argument doesn't seem to hold much water. I suppose the other possible reason is the suggestion that WT is a bad development agency and TPLC would do better -- despite having no track record of success beyond the Corus building, which no one holds up as a beautiful development on its own -- but, if that's the case, why aren't we pulling ALL our land from Waterfront Toronto?

Either we trust this agency to build us a great waterfront or we don't.

 

[hawc]

Lets face it, their main goal here is to get the lands turned over to City Hall so they can sell it off to the highest bidder to fund their agenda.

Arguments always lose credibility when they accuse the other side of having 'an agenda'.

The world's not that sinister. It's just competing visions. And one side does not own the moral high ground over the other.

Criticize the plan, but leave the spookiness out of it.

 

[fouronesix]

Arguments always lose credibility when they accuse the other side of having 'an agenda'.

The world's not that sinister. It's just competing visions. And one side does not own the moral high ground over the other.

Criticize the plan, but leave the spookiness out of it.

If you think politics is devoid of power and struggles for power, then you are simply naive.

 

[spider]

Every one has an "agenda" just as every one has a pulse. Accusing some one of having an agenda is rather redundant unless your purpose is to discuss that agenda.

 

[hawc]

Thank you. My point said better. Both sides have an agenda so it's silly for one side to make out the other side to be secretive and diabolical.

 

[Paleo]

Thank you. My point said better. Both sides have an agenda so it's silly for one side to make out the other side to be secretive and diabolical.

I suppose the question would then be what is yours since you were rambling on a few pages ago about how WT has done nothing so far.

 

[neubilder]

Arguments always lose credibility when they accuse the other side of having 'an agenda'.

The world's not that sinister. It's just competing visions. And one side does not own the moral high ground over the other.

Criticize the plan, but leave the spookiness out of it.

Thank you. My point said better. Both sides have an agenda so it's silly for one side to make out the other side to be secretive and diabolical.

Yes, everyone has an agenda, but the Ford's have hidden agendas and ulterior motives. Secretive, diabolical and destructive.

Their interests DO NOT favour sustainability and quality of life in the city.