Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Actually if you have read the slidedeck, at least some of the other choices would have worked (taken at their face-value). The reason they chose this site is ultimately that they didn't think demolishing a good chunk of the community core a more serious negative than the other negatives.

AoD
Click to expand...
I have read those slides yes. Other than the two I mentioned which others do you think could work well?
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Site 1 (Wicksteed) would have worked better - with the added bonus of not having a MSF taking up station proximate land.

AoD
Click to expand...
I mean they're using part of Wicksteed so I didn't think too much of it but I agree they could most likely shift a lot of the storage tracks out that way no problem, and that would spare a lot of the Thorncliffe businesses. The only problem I see is not having enough room without heavily disrupting the roads there.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Site 1 (Wicksteed) would have worked better - with the added bonus of not having a MSF taking up station proximate land.

AoD
Click to expand...
That is the other option that makes sense to me, aside from the fact that I thought Wickstead had the potential to impact environmentally sensitive land.

Also, on the opposite side of the tracks from the station is not proximate from an actual transit-use perspective.
 
KhalilHeron said:
I mean they're using part of Wicksteed so I didn't think too much of it but I agree they could most likely shift a lot of the storage tracks out that way no problem, and that would spare a lot of the Thorncliffe businesses. The only problem I see is not having enough room without heavily disrupting the roads there.
Click to expand...
The other factor is that it is much cheaper and easier to re-locate low-density commercial than specialized industrial. There is plenty of parking lot space nearby that can be built on to provide new homes for those businesses, if you try and re-locate the industrial businesses, they are likely moving very far away and those jobs are gone for locals.
 
Ottawan said:
That is the other option that makes sense to me, aside from the fact that I thought Wickstead had the potential to impact environmentally sensitive land.

Also, on the opposite side of the tracks from the station is not proximate from an actual transit-use perspective.
Click to expand...

It is proximate in terms of a intensification perspective - land close by stations is valuable on matter which side they're on - and to have one of the lowest possible uses - a depot - next to a station is a complete waste.

AoD
 
tsm1072 said:
The other factor is that it is much cheaper and easier to re-locate low-density commercial than specialized industrial. There is plenty of parking lot space nearby that can be built on to provide new homes for those businesses, if you try and re-locate the industrial businesses, they are likely moving very far away and those jobs are gone for locals.
Click to expand...

Those jobs probably aren't local if they are specialized.

AoD
 
KhalilHeron said:
Local enough that if they had to move their current employees would probably be too far from their new location.
Click to expand...

Well, do you rather level a community's core and build a yard beside a new station instead? Like I have said, they didn't think demolishing a good chunk of the community core is a more serious negative than the other negatives. This is typical of LULU's - they got located where they were precisely because that's where the community is least able to resist it.

afransen said:
If they had chosen one of the other viable alternatives, people would be moaning about the loss of local employment due to displaced businesses.
Click to expand...

True, but I suspect there will be fewer moaners (because in all likelihood, they aren't local employment by and large).

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Site 1 (Wicksteed) would have worked better - with the added bonus of not having a MSF taking up station proximate land.

AoD
Click to expand...

Site one is the Tremco factory.

Tremco makes commercial and industrial roofing products, sealants, caulking and waterproofing. They've been on that site for 60 years.

Politically that would be very hard to move.

A few years ago the TRCA literally moved the West Don River so their site wouldn't fall into the Don Valley. (and re-graded the slope).

Move the river, shutter the factory.........Bad Look.

****

Jobs aside (though Tremco does provide 190 of those); that's Industrial land paying commercial tax rates, that's a lot of coin out of the City's coffers.
 
Last edited:
I think the track was also more costly to build the MSF on the other side of the rail ROW.

I don't disagree that it might be the right thing to do. Putting the MSF next to a station seems like a waste of prime developable land.
 
Northern Light said:
Site one is the Tremco factory.

Tremco makes commercial and industrial roofing products, sealants, caulking and waterproofing. They've been on that site for 60 years.

Politically that would be very hard to move.

A few years ago the TRCA literally moved the West Don River so their site wouldn't fall into the Don Valley. (and re-graded the slope).

Move the river, shutter the factory.........Bad Look.

****

Jobs aside (though Tremco does provide 190 of those); that's Industrial land paying commercial tax rates, that's a lot of coin out of the Cities coffers.
Click to expand...

Then pay them to relocate somewhere local - I am sure the province (and the city) have enough vacant industrial land to make that a possibility.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Then pay them to relocate somewhere local - I am sure the province (and the city) have enough vacant industrial land to make that possibility
Click to expand...
You could say the same for storefronts with the current plan. I agree moving commercial space is probably more harmful to the community but it's not like there's no space. I mean half the neighbourhood is parking lots.
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Like I have said, they didn't think demolishing a good chunk of the community core a more serious negative than the other negatives.
Click to expand...
Community core is a stretch. From the images, they've provided it looks like the closest thing to Overlea is a power substation set back a minimum of 30 metres away from the street. If you're counting the core as south of Overlea then it doesn't meet this definition. Mind you this "core" directly south of Overlea is a sea of mall parking lots. Not exactly a community hub. They've done a relatively good job at keeping the facility far from actual residences, so as long as they can do a good job of integrating the facility in with the rest of the community, and hopefully allowing structures to be built on top of it, it's not infringing on the neighbourhood too much minus the forced relocation of businesses.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top