Toronto Ontario Place | ?m | ?s | Infrastructure ON

[innsertnamehere]

Absolutely - The province should be more forthright about what's happening here. I suspect the financing structure is evolving as design proceeds - which may be why they are quiet. The province of course is just generally pretty quiet about everything it does, as well..

 

[generalcanada]

Claiming it is a "fraction" is meaningless - if there is such a strong business case for parking, let the private sector take care of it. This isn't even like parking at the GO, where there is a conceivable argument for funding it publicly as a public good.

AoD

Ive heard this opinion, what id say to it is that This is a negotiation.

Would you rather the government pay for, own and operate the parking garage, with at least a small amount of offset revenue.

or would you rather the government build the beach and trail themselves and let the company build operate and maintain the parking garage,

People saying "if the company wants it they should pay for everything including the sewers" which is just not how you negotiate in good faith.

good faith is what alot of people here and in the city planning department are missing. a whole lot of "NO" instead of concessions

 

[Northern Light]

Ive heard this opinion, what id say to it is that This is a negotiation.

Would you rather the government pay for, own and operate the parking garage, with at least a small amount of offset revenue.

or would you rather the government build the beach and trail themselves and let the company build operate and maintain the parking garage,

People saying "if the company wants it they should pay for everything including the sewers" which is just not how you negotiate in good faith.

good faith is what alot of people here and in the city planning department are missing. a whole lot of "NO" instead of concessions

You seem selective about the concept of 'good faith'.

'Good Faith' is consulting the public about what they would like done with their property and not foisting a choice on the public for which no appetite has been shown.

There is no good faith from the province or the proponent here. Secretiveness is not good faith when dealing with a public asset.

 

[3Dementia]

I've started noticing more and more references in the media and here at UT that describe the Therme project as (just) a "spa". This is starting to seem like a disingenuous opposition strategy ... because a spa does kinda sound like a dumb idea that will just serve/pamper elite adults.

C'mon.

The project is a massive waterpark (with a spa) that will entertain family members of all ages. It's okay to oppose it but don't wordsmith the potential family fun out of the equation.

 

[generalcanada]

You seem selective about the concept of 'good faith'.

'Good Faith' is consulting the public about what they would like done with their property and not foisting a choice on the public for which no appetite has been shown.

There is no good faith from the province or the proponent here. Secretiveness is not good faith when dealing with a public asset.

but they are consulting. you cant be seriously saying they arent?

did metrolinx "consult" with Osgoode hall? did they consult with Leslieville?

Consultation to the residents was stopping the projects altogether or getting only what they want.

That is not negotiating in good faith. Leslieville gave up and finally asked for something good for them, they got a design competition for noise walls. Good for them.

we already have seen changes here due to what the public consultations found
they originally proposed a sand beach, but apperently some people want it to stay as a rock beach. Fine by me, i dont care.

THAT is what i mean.

You cant just say "NO" you have give improvements to the project that makes this better.

So finally i ask...without saying cancelling this project in its entirety....

what would make you support this project? what design changes can you think of?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

but they are consulting. you cant be seriously saying they arent?

did metrolinx "consult" with Osgoode hall? did they consult with Leslieville?

Consultation to the residents was stopping the projects altogether or getting only what they want.

That is not negotiating in good faith. Leslieville gave up and finally asked for something good for them, they got a design competition for noise walls. Good for them.

we already have seen changes here due to what the public consultations found
they originally proposed a sand beach, but apperently some people want it to stay as a rock beach. Fine by me, i dont care.

THAT is what i mean.

You cant just say "NO" you have give improvements to the project that makes this better.

So finally i ask...without saying cancelling this project in its entirety....

what would make you support this project? what design changes can you think of?

I actually don't have a huge issue with the general notion of a water park/spa along the lines of Therme (though I am suspicious that they are over-promising - not really my concern though so long as the public is insulated). What I am concerned about is the current government's ultimate intentions and lack of general transparency.

AoD

 

[T3G]

did metrolinx "consult" with Osgoode hall?

If they did, that's news to me.

Also, a transit line, even one as bungled as the Ontario Line, is a little different from a luxury, discretionary item like a theme park / spa. There is no essential public good being delivered with the redevelopment of Ontario Place, unlike the Ontario Line, so the usual rules of NIMBYism and opposition thereof don't apply. I say this as someone who doesn't care one way or the other what happens to the site. I just don't feel this is an appropriate parallel to draw at all.

 

[Northern Light]

but they are consulting. you cant be seriously saying they arent?

did metrolinx "consult" with Osgoode hall? did they consult with Leslieville?

No

Consultation to the residents was stopping the projects altogether or getting only what they want.

But the proponents are automatically entitled to what they want? Uh, No.

That is not negotiating in good faith. Leslieville gave up and finally asked for something good for them, they got a design competition for noise walls. Good for them.

Again, we need to be clear. I'm not suggesting every resident get a veto on new development, or transit etc etc. That is unreasonable. But you have a strange concept of 'good faith'.

If I come along and tell you I'm tearing down your house whether you like it or not, even if I'm not the owner, because I some arguable legal right to do so, I will. Then I give you the choice, when I replace your house with a condo tower, would you like a unit on the 4th floor or the 5th floor, if you don't say 'yes' to one of those, you're negotiating in bad faith. That is the comparison here.

This is MY property as a member of the public, I have a say in whether there will be a spa, period!

You cant just say "NO"

Yes, I can; and I am.

you have give improvements to the project that makes this better.

I don't to, but I have, but it amounts to proverbial lipstick on a pig. The proposal is so outlandishly bad that it's hard to find ways to redeem it.

So finally i ask...without saying cancelling this project in its entirety....

what would make you support this project? what design changes can you think of?

See above. If you read the City report..........

The proposal's height is overbearing relative to the cinesphere and pods, so lower height would be better.

The proposal's girth is an obstacle to easy access to the waterfront and results in hundreds of mature trees being removed, smaller would be better.

The proposal's scale in combination with the failure to address easier connections to transit result in absurd volume of parking; so lower scale and less parking it would be good.

Finally, the proposal necessitates considerable upgrades to the City's sewer system, likely owing both the volume of water to be used and regularly refreshed inside this complex as well as the significant reduction in area for natural water infiltration. A smaller site area, and a green roof would help with this issue, but the proponent should be solely responsible for the cost of increasing sewer capacity here w/o sending the bill to the public.

***

If the proponent agrees, in 'good faith' to the above, I'm happy to give the proposal a second look.

Of course, I have a funny notion that a design that met my reasonable asks would not be economically viable.

 

[generalcanada]

im too am skeptical that some of those asks in the report were economically feasible. and if not they should come back and say no sorry we cant accomodate that.

Other than that we just straight disagree on multiple things there.

I firmly believe that the government should be able to tell the public this is happening and you cant stop this without an election. Ontario line, Ontario Place, GO Transit, Hell even your example when like metrolinx buys land and kicks out tenants/owners. Thats completely fine and normal

I guess this opinion comes from what I've seen as the enormous amount of interference in both housing developments and transit over the past few years. In my opinion so much unnecessary time and money is spent on fighting only local residents for any project in Ontario

even the rail deck park proposal I talked to the guys at the open house, they bleed $2 million per month just awaiting city planning. It's their land they should be able to do whatever they want with it

"consultation" as required by the government should be what it is. This is happening, how can we make your experience better

 

[Northern Light]

even the rail deck park proposal I talked to the guys at the open house, they bleed $2 million per month just awaiting city planning. Its their land they should be able to do whatever they want with it

This is just a statement with which I fundamentally disagree and I would argue it undermines every essential philosophy on democracy, on property rights and on any urban planning at all.

So I don't know that we much to discuss when your position amounts to pro-totalitarian, crony capitalism with no urban planning at all.

I should add here, I'm not meaning to be at all hostile nor hyperbolic; I just find your take here very extreme and outside the basis for much rational exchange.

 

[generalcanada]

This is just a statement with which I fundamentally disagree and I would argue it undermines every essential philosophy on democracy, on property rights and on any urban planning at all.

So I don't know that we much to discuss when your position amounts to pro-totalitarian, crony capitalism with no urban planning at all.

I should add here, I'm not meaning to be at all hostile nor hyperbolic; I just find your take here very extreme and outside the basis for much rational exchange.

dont get me wrong urban planning is useful. But theres just an excess of it. Requiring them to spend 5 years and millions of dollars building plans just to get it shot down due to an incorrect brick colour?
What we need is a standardized set of designs and guidelines that developers can use to get quick approvals. If it fits those then no consultation required

The insanely long approval process and zoning rules like height requirements is how we got into this housing crisis in the first place.

 

[concrete_and_light]

I guess this opinion comes from what I've seen as the enormous amount of interference in both housing developments and transit over the past few years. In my opinion so much unnecessary time and money is spent on fighting only local residents for any project in Ontario

For vital transit and housing that's a totally different situation than a secret private sweetheart deal for the business buddies from an international corporation for a new completely unnecessary spa proposal on public land that destroys ecosystems and isn't well considered. A badly designed private spa on public space with deceptive renderings and the government forking over a bunch of money for a parking garage under a secret deal without transparency, etc. is not in any way the same as housing and transit developments.

Edit: Also if they don't want a fight the Ontario government should start off by not imposing things unilaterally and heavy handidly. See also: CUPE, city council cuts in the middle of an election, etc. — "Why are you fighting back?? We punched you first, but that's our right as the provincial government, you are our creature. Why are you mad??" They can't act surprised when things are contentious and like it's the public that's wrong when they start off things like this.

 

[Northern Light]

dont get me wrong urban planning is useful. But theres just an excess of it. Requiring them to spend 5 years and millions of dollars building plans just to get it shot down due to an incorrect brick colour?

In general, Planning neither can, nor does regulate brick colour. The only arguable exceptions to that may be where a development integrates a heritage designated building, and to a lesser degree, possibly in a Heritage Conservation District.

What we need is a standardized set of designs and guidelines that developers can use to get quick approvals. If it fits those then no consultation required

LOL, we already have those, except virtually every developer wants to be excepted from at least some of those standards, plus, the zoning by-laws are so out of date, they almost always require a ZBA anyway.

The insanely long approval process and zoning rules like height requirements is how we got into this housing crisis in the first place.

The process can be unduly lengthy but has very little to do with our housing crisis; as people involved in the development industry have clearly stated here (as have I quoting same), if the entire city were zoned 100-storey, mixed-use tomorrow, units would not be built any faster as there are no additional crane operators and many other skilled-worker shortages as well.

There are finite numbers of project planners/managers and finite capital resources and no one is bringing anything to market to lose money.

So laying the affordable housing crisis on zoning is utter nonsense.

What bad zoning laws do is impose some unreasonable costs and delays which do make otherwise already expensive housing a bit moreso. But the accretive effects would not make ownership or rental housing available to the majority.

To do that, you need a lot less immigration in the near term (this includes foreign students and TFWs) so as to not only 'match' demand to supply, but so as to see demand come in below supply allowing the industry to catch up.

You also need intervention by CMHC to provide low-interest (below market) loans to rental-housing providers, co-ops, etc. in exchange for affordable rent guarantees.

Finally you need to tackle the financialization of housing by eliminating the capital gains exemption for primary residences, by eliminating the lower rate of capital gains inclusion for tax purposes, and you need capital gains to be deducted at source, not allowing self-reporting.

Of course, this suite of actions would send literally over a million Canadian households and multiple developers into bankruptcy, thems the breaks.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

The insanely long approval process and zoning rules like height requirements is how we got into this housing crisis in the first place.

Perhaps rental market being opened to more market forces by the current provincial government is the simpler explanation here. And one that most certainly can't be resolved by even more deregulation nonsense. Just saying.

 

[thaivic]

Finally you need to tackle the financialization of housing by eliminating the capital gains exemption for primary residences, by eliminating the lower rate of capital gains inclusion for tax purposes, and you need capital gains to be deducted at source, not allowing self-reporting.

We don't have a housing crisis because of capital gains exemption on primary residences, we have a housing crisis because of many different issues, these are a few of the issues IMO, to much immigration, low cost of borrowing for a long period of time, very slow process with city approvals, ridiculous fees by the cities, and to many people buying and flipping properties for a quick profit, Developers will not invest in rental stock if it won't be profitable, i would agree that for people that are flipping properties they should be taxed on the full amount of their profit but totally disagree to tax someones profit on their principal residence when they could not write off any of the expenses that they incurred over the many years of owning their principal residence.