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

[PinkLucy]

It's good to know that some of the councillors ARE listening to people -- I think public outcry is indeed getting through to some of them -- unlike the Mayor who continues to say he listens but really only hears what he wants to hear.

 

[Torontovibe]

Klassy.

As much as I might hate a person, I'd never call an elected politician and swear. Some here are showing their true colours.

Where did you see me say I swore? There were no "F bombs" dropped, as much as I was tempted to. We have a politician who is tearing this city apart and you expect people to keep it "klassy" and play nice? lol We are dealing with a thug and when you deal with thugs, you don't worry about manners. Ford has no problem flipping the bird to 6 year olds or screaming obscenities at a hockey game, so what's good for the goose, is good for the gander. Anyway, I didn't swear or freak out, I just let a few politicians know what I think of them. Hey, everybody has to vent now and then. I hate what these self-serving thugs are doing to this city, so I'm not going to keep quiet. I will keep defending my city.

 

[neubilder]

This is great - it has really backfired on the (insert expletives)Fords - blown up in their faces. So great to see.

What this has achieved is that the Waterfront Toronto mandate is stronger than ever to the extent their is justification to boost it's funding (clearly everybody wants the process expedited). John Campbell must really be smiling!

 

[DSC]

This is great - it has really backfired on the (insert expletives) Fords - blown up in their faces. So great to see.

What this has achieved is that the Waterfront Toronto mandate is stronger than ever to the extent their is justification to boost it's funding (clearly everybody wants the process expedited). John Campbell must really be smiling!

It is certainly looking better BUT "it's not over until it's over" - keep nagging your Councillor(s). Take a look at the excellent article in Spacing at: http://spacingtoronto.ca/2011/09/15/realityy-check-on-the-waterfront/

 

[neubilder]

It is certainly looking better BUT "it's not over until it's over" - keep nagging your Councillor(s). Take a look at the excellent article in Spacing at: http://spacingtoronto.ca/2011/09/15/realityy-check-on-the-waterfront/

From the Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rfront-vision-sinking-quickly/article2168320/



NO. After this fiasco, it's pretty clear Ford Brothers (and their proxy, TPLC) have no respect for process and even less for planning excellence. Why should the future be mortgaged for their failures?

AoD

Absolutely. Fords are already attempting to save face and worse to make proposals for "compromise". These efforts must be wholeheartedly rejected not least of all for the reasons mentioned by AlvinofDiaspar (above).

 

[MetroMan]

And the Ford enablers continue to back away: Mayor Rob Ford ally Councillor John Parker backs Waterfront Toronto

This is great - it has really backfired on the (insert expletives)Fords - blown up in their faces. So great to see.

What this has achieved is that the Waterfront Toronto mandate is stronger than ever to the extent their is justification to boost it's funding (clearly everybody wants the process expedited). John Campbell must really be smiling!

I completely agree. This has turned out to be the best thing that could have happened to Waterfront Toronto. It has put the effort back in the news and has brought together strong public support for the organization. It may speed things up a little bit, but then again, practical and visible progress was already ramping up anyway. The years of mostly environmental assessments and planning are turning into years of construction.

 

[jaycola]

I"d be happy if Ford would just fast track a few parts of the plan that he agrees with and move on. It can't be hard. Just look at the existing plan, pick a few things you really like and push forward on those. It's a win for everyone.
He really has no mandate for the portlands redevelopment. He can make suggestions for drastic change but he knows there will be limited actual development during his reign.

I'd say he should just hang his hat on Hearn Ice Rink complex. If he can get private money to make something happen there, fast, I'd support him on it. Saving that place from the wrecking ball would help him on this slide he's on. Make the pace "green on the cheap!" . Again a win win situation.
That place could be spactular.

Just sell of big chunks of the building to private individuals. Carve up the exterior like a wedding cake. Make some into live work space. Maybe create a few residential apartments.

On the inside I'd make it 3 Ice rinks and a pool.

There's tonnes of land around this place. I would add a "Street food" lot. Invite street food from throughout the region to set up on a rotating basis.

Give him another piece next to it if he wants it and he can get something started.

Create a canel-side promenade with retail pods. Tiny shops, use wide open. Little independant shops selling thier services and wares.

After that he can say he contributed to the city. He built something and left a legacy. He can add the worlds largest pair of "Truck Nuts" to the front of the building if he wants to attract tourists.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And here is Milczyn's "compromise" - obtained by our very own GraphicMatt (why thank you!) and posted on the Star:

http://thestar.blogs.com/thegoods/2...rd-administrations-waterfront-compromise.html

Sounds like it's repackaging the theme to wait for a more opportune time to draw blood - let me quote:

● ensure a robust and comprehensive public consultation process that is consistent with the standard and expectation in the Designated
Waterfront Area.

Yes, how many robust and comprehensive public consultation process had there been from TPLC? ZERO. The scheme dropped like mana from heaven From WT? I have been to two EA meetings in person, and the scheme itself was a design competition that is relatively open from the very beginning.

● have a fresh look at the options for the Don Mouth Environmental Assessment ("EA") and the Lower Don Lands to ensure that the plan is accurately costed and sufficiently funded.

Right, just what "options" would those be, exactly? Oh look:

The EA re-examination will incorporate the costing and economic analysis from the work of TPLC (see below) and Waterfront Toronto's business plan for all EA options for the Port Lands.

That's right, ALL EA options - not the selected one. In other words, the "plan" presented by TPLC and the specific configuration of the channel used will be back in the running.

TPLC, with input from WT, will undertake a business plan for the Port Lands as outlined in the August 22, 2011 staff report to Executive Committee.

The TPLC Port Lands business plan will be reviewed by the City...

As the TPLC business plan is being completed, the City will initiate a review of the Port Lands planning framework to assess whether any changes will be necessary.

This may also include undertaking planning studies for the additional 600 acres of City Portlands that have not yet been subject to any detailed planning.

Make no mistakes folks, the game hasn't changed - only cloaked in some concillatory language that serves the ultimate end goal - wresting control. This "plan" should be shoved where it belongs - where it doesn't see the sun, ever. Keep the emails to the councillors following and let them know that this compromise is bull.

AoD

 

[jje1000]

Sounds like it's repackaging the theme to wait for a more opportune time to draw blood-

[...]

Make no mistakes folks, the game hasn't changed - only cloaked in some conciliatory language that serves the ultimate end goal - wresting control. This "plan" should be shoved where it belongs - where it doesn't see the sun, ever. Keep the emails to the councilors following and let them know that this compromise is bull.

AoD

Gross. Any people or CodeBlueTO organizers that can be contacted to warn them about this?

It would be terrible if councilors rejecting Ford's plan were to be suckered into this 'compromise'. I don't even know why the TPLC still exists, or why it's been given permission by Ford to spend taxpayer dollars on an alternate scheme.

 

[EnviroTO]

Make no mistakes folks, the game hasn't changed - only cloaked in some concillatory language that serves the ultimate end goal - wresting control. This "plan" should be shoved where it belongs - where it doesn't see the sun, ever. Keep the emails to the councillors following and let them know that this compromise is bull.

I have e-mailed my councillor. Most of the unpopular things that politicians do can be reversed if necessary. The crowding of buses is not forever, nor an increase in taxes. Toronto's Waterfront is near forever. Once it is ruined it may never be fixed and if is it won't be in our lifetime. To ruin it you don't need to build anything on it, all you need to do is sell it and loose control. Having that amount of unused land sitting so close to downtown is a huge asset and a once in a lifetime opportunity. It could all be squandered to pay for a vehicle registration tax cut by undoing a commitment made by Mel Lastman 10 years ago, only partially fulfilled last year by the city. Anyone talking about this being a plan to speed up things is either purposely misleading, being dishonest, or is really misinformed. If the city wanted things done fast they could have transferred the land or money to a trust in 2001 when the commitment was made, or to Waterfront Toronto when the MOU was signed in 2006. It took 9 years to give the land required to make this happen, and then one year later the question is why is it taking so long, and now give us the land back? It makes no sense. It only makes sense when you realize this isn't about waterfront development, it is about paying for operational deficits through asset sales. A bad idea always. Almost as bad an idea as purposely reducing revenues when you haven't got enough money to cover costs to begin with.

 

[nfitz]

Did we not learn anything from Montreal? Building an Olympic stadium that far from the core is a complete waste of money.

5 km and 6 metro stops from downtown is that far from the core? It's an 8-minute ride from Berri-UQAM.

The problem with the Olympic Stadium is that most cities don't need a huge athletics stadium, and the structure isn't that suitable for baseball, soccer, football, or hockey.

The Alouettes would love to have a larger stadium. If the city and team were able to convert the Olympic Stadium too something smaller they still wouldn't want it because they complain of the distance.

That's not true. The Alouettes play in Molson Stadium of all places. It's over 1-km to the nearest Metro station ... uphill.

Even in the Expos good days the stadium was fairly empty because of............wait for it..........location.

In the good old days, it had 50,000+ in it. Location wasn't a huge issue.

The biggest issue is that no one needs a 70,000 seater. And it was a horrid environment for baseball, soccer, and football. If the location is so terrible, why have the Montreal Impact built their new stadium right next door to the Olympic Stadium? And why do they keep making it bigger?

 

[Thanos]

That's not true. The Alouettes play in Molson Stadium of all places. It's over 1-km to the nearest Metro station ... uphill.

And yet people flock there because it's in the downtown core. Queen West is nowhere near a metro station and yet is packed with people. Go figure huh.

In the good old days, it had 50,000+ in it. Location wasn't a huge issue.

Get your facts straight buddy. I was an expos season ticket holder. In 1994, the Expos were averaging 24,000/game, and ranked 18th in the league in attendance. The Expos never averaged more then 30,000/game. You're obviously clueless. I'm a hardcore baseball fan who grew up in Montreal. The Expos never had a big following from Montrealers and the casual fans all complained about the location. Hence why they pushed for a downtown stadium that was still 1km away from the nearest metro.

The biggest issue is that no one needs a 70,000 seater. And it was a horrid environment for baseball, soccer, and football. If the location is so terrible, why have the Montreal Impact built their new stadium right next door to the Olympic Stadium?

Hence why i said we'll see how the Impact does in the MLS.

And why do they keep making it bigger?

They kind of had no choice if they wanted in the MLS.

 

[nfitz]

And yet people flock there because it's in the downtown core.

Pine and Park in the downtown core? That's a stretch. People flock because they like the product. The Allouttes had some higher seasons at Olympic Stadium in the 1970s than they get now. It's not about location. It's about the product and ambience. Olympic Stadium is still quite central.

Queen West is nowhere near a metro station and yet is packed with people. Go figure huh.

There's a subway station at Queen West and University. It's a short walk to Spadina and Bathurst.

Get your facts straight buddy.

That seems unnecessarily rude.

I was an expos season ticket holder.

And I attended many an Expo game at the Big O, along with Alouettes. Manic, and even Concorde games.

In 1994, the Expos were averaging 24,000/game, and ranked 18th in the league in attendance.

I said in the good old day. It was all over by the late 1980s. The 1981 strike was the beginning of the end. After 1983 it was all downhill.

The Expos never averaged more then 30,000/game.

Never said it did ... but for the weekend games, and the big games, I saw enough games with over 50,000 in the Big O. It was the only time it ever felt like it had any atmosphere.

You're obviously clueless.

And your being intolerably and unnecessarily rude. Why are you so rude?

I'm a hardcore baseball fan who grew up in Montreal.

As was I.

The Expos never had a big following from Montrealers and the casual fans all complained about the location. Hence why they pushed for a downtown stadium that was still 1km away from the nearest metro.

That was years later ... after it was all over. I never heard any complaints about the location. That sounds more like something some Anglo west-islander would say than a Montrealer.

They kind of had no choice if they wanted in the MLS.

The Impact's average attendance is over 11,000 this season, in a stadium with a capacity of only 13,000. This is higher than some MLS teams, and much higher than any other NASL team. Compare to about 1,800 for Edmonton ... heck, I think the next best attendance is barely over 4,000. Surely this clearly demonstrates that location is not the issue for the Olympic Stadium. The issue is the product on the field and the complete lack of ambience of the stadium. With 30,000 in it, the Olympic Stadium feels soulless.

 

[Thanos]

Pine and Park in the downtown core? That's a stretch. People flock because they like the product. The Allouttes had some higher seasons at Olympic Stadium in the 1970s than they get now. It's not about location. It's about the product and ambience. Olympic Stadium is still quite central.

It's a short walk to the downtown core.

There's a subway station at Queen West and University. It's a short walk to Spadina and Bathurst.

And Pine/Park is an even shorter walk.

I said in the good old day. It was all over by the late 1980s. The 1981 strike was the beginning of the end. After 1983 it was all downhill.

I didn't know the best season in the history of the franchise was not the good old days. Let's look at the early 80s. 1980-83 attendance was in the mid-to high 20,000. About half of the 50,000 you claim.

Never said it did ... but for the weekend games, and the big games, I saw enough games with over 50,000 in the Big O. It was the only time it ever felt like it had any atmosphere.

You said "In the good old days, it had 50,000+ in it. Location wasn't a huge issue." Other then home openers and a handful of games they were never anywhere near the 50 mark.

And your being intolerably and unnecessarily rude. Why are you so rude?

I apologize for that comment. As a hardcore baseball fan i get very frustrated when people claim about the so called good old days for the Expos when they never existed. People seem to forget that even when they were competitive the fans still did not show up.

That was years later ... after it was all over. I never heard any complaints about the location. That sounds more like something some whining Anglo west-islander would say than a Montrealer.

I was born and raise around the Park metro station. Even in the good old days there was still a lack of support. It was much better then the 90s that's for sure but that's not saying much.

 

[nfitz]

Let's look at the early 80s. 1980-83 attendance was in the mid-to high 20,000. About half of the 50,000 you claim.

But you must remember how it was. It was pretty empty for a mid-day games. A bit better for an evening game ... but it was the weekends when the crowds came out. I don't think I ever saw less than 40,000 there during that time. But it was for the bigger games.

You said "In the good old days, it had 50,000+ in it. Location wasn't a huge issue." Other then home openers and a handful of games they were never anywhere near the 50 mark.

That's not my recollection. Seems to me it was regularly over 40,000 on a weekend in the summer.

I apologize for that comment.

Thank you.

... i get very frustrated when people claim about the so called good old days for the Expos when they never existed. People seem to forget that even when they were competitive the fans still did not show up.

I don't think that's true. We used to be near the top of the league in attendance. Only the Dodgers were significantly better. The Phillies were pretty equal ... but we were near double the Toronto attendance some years back then ... far more than double of the Cubs, Pirates, or Padres.

Part of Montreal's problem is the loss of interest in the late 1980s and 1990s coincided with the huge growth in audience in baseball in the US.

I think the location of the Big O doesn't play much into it ... not compared to the sterility of the place. You must be aware of how different the vibe is in there with 50,000+ compared to 20,000. It just feels completely empty, even with 25,000.