News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 1.9K     13 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Bayview Village Resubmission More Than Doubles Height Near Bessarion Station
 2.3K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Drone Flight Captures Cladding Progress at Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon
 708     0 

U of T's Observatory Lands (Richmond Hill)

By the way - I just forgot to mention:
As rpotter said above, this is a piece of land that is actually bigger than the entire St. George campus.

Obviously Richmond Hill is not Toronto but imagine how David Miller or your average Toronto resident would react if U of T suddenly announced they were accepting proposals to sell all of their downtown land to the highest bidder.

I don't think anyone would be placated by the university explaining that the money would allow them to build better facilities for their students, faculty and research at a more appropriate location.
 
junctionist said:
... I was under the impression that the U of T has some academic role and that it's something beyond a corporation.
Click to expand...

I have been affiliated with Universities off-and-on over the years, from California to Québec, and from Ontario to Connecticut, and they are just as crass as any corporation when it comes to "getting theirs" if the stakes are high enough. U of T is continuing the tradition as per usual. And that spin of theirs, as TJ O'Pootertoot clearly exposes, is too disingenuous to do anything other than to laugh.

I would have thought that the reaction would have been broader than it has been, but I sense resignation and apathy. "No place is sacred ... we have to go forward ... after all, they handled it well, under the circumstances".
 
I still don't see how it is "crass" at all to sell this land. A university is not quite the same as a corporation, true. But management at the university has the same duty (fiduciary responsibility) as corporate managements, to make the best use of their assets. As mentioned before, if this property has now become unsuitable to its use, they not only could, but probably should, sell it, and unlock value. The money would be used for other purposes furthering the university's objectives.

The university may not have been as politically astute as they might have been, in terms of communicating with Richmond Hill council and local residents. If so, they should take the time to communicate properly and explain their objectives and reasoning. It doesn't mean that this sale should be scrapped.

The use of the property after its sale is the responsibility of the municipality, not the university. It is the municipality that will determine zoning and what types of development would be permitted. My own opinion: Richmond Hill consists of an awful lot of large houses on large lots, and in today's environment it might make some sense to plan something at a bit higher density (not necessarily high rise). The observatory itself will hopefully be preserved, as a historic structure.
 
Let me address your view the following way. The historical legacy of this Observatory is clear to the University, I would also think it would be clear to everyone else in the area, in Canada, and beyond. The reasons they offered as to why it must be disposed can easily be challenged by not only outsiders but by those within, and it has. but mostly on paper. The political dimension is well understood by the University, hence the secrecy is masked by claims that the process was open, evidence to the contrary. Do you really think that demonstrates a lack of political astuteness on their part?

That talking point about responsibility of the municipality after the sale ignores the University's responsibility before the sale takes place. By its crass attempts to grab a piece of the action by, in effect, holding the Observatory as a bargaining chip in negotiation is there for everyone to see.
 
Walt - your perspective is reasonable and it's almost exactly what U of T said at the meeting. The town can now zone the lands as they see fit.
You are also right that they are, given Places to Grow, more likely to be looking at some kind of mid-rise development as opposed to traditional subdivisions.

My guess it they will zone a small piece near Bayview for development and receive heritage designation for much of the rest. And the problem with your logic and U of T's is that the development industry will, as they always do, want MORE and we will spend years and millions at the OMB.

U of T is spinning this as if they're putting the land's future in the town's hands but they've really stuck them with a looming series of problems.

Even if we agree that the observatory is obsolete (hardly a scientific consensus) there is still more to this than, "U of T has a right to make money and, yeah, they should have been more communicative."

All I can say is what I said above: Remember that the land is bigger than the St. George Campus and ask what people in Toronto would be doing if U of T announced, out of nowhere, they were selling that.

Because the observatory land is not even serviced, and because the heritage designation is pending, this will go on for quite a while, I think.
 
All I can say is what I said above: Remember that the land is bigger than the St. George Campus and ask what people in Toronto would be doing if U of T announced, out of nowhere, they were selling that.
Click to expand...

I know what you're trying to get at, but this isn't the best example because you really can't compare St. George with the Observatory. It's anyone's guess what could be built at the Observatory because nothing really sits there now except for the Observatory itself. A lot is at stake in Richmond Hill! But St. George on the other hand is completely built out, and the overall land use couldn't change regardless of who owns it.

A much better example would be if U of T hypothetically owned High Park and used it as a forestry or wildlife research centre. Then, out of the blue, U of T decided to sell High Park to a developer.
 
How locally cherishable/useable are the observatory grounds as de facto parkland as it stands? That is, could there be a pro-park grassroots campaign to ward off overzealous developers? (Shades of the community protest that led to Lakeshore Psychiatric's morphing into Humber College grounds, et al)

Probably not now, but somehow, I can picture Dunlap as a Griffith Park-type mythic place for submarine races of yore...
 
adma said:
How locally cherishable/useable are the observatory grounds as de facto parkland as it stands? That is, could there be a pro-park grassroots campaign to ward off overzealous developers? (Shades of the community protest that led to Lakeshore Psychiatric's morphing into Humber College grounds, et al)
Click to expand...

There is already such a campaign building. It's U of T's promise to sell at "fair market value" that makes creating a park a challenge. The town and community likely wouldn't have enough money to make that happen - possibly they could if a portion of lands are sold to developers.

If you look at the overhead view (http://tinyurl.com/2elwqq) you can see it's a mixture of woodlands and fields. I expect the east side to be developed and as for the rest...it depends on what happens with the heritage designation which is likely a few months off.
 
Chuck said:
I think that U of T's only mistake was going about this whole process in such a secretive way. The local community, university community, astronomical community, as well as the GTA as a whole, deserved more notice. Having said that, U of T can do whatever it pleases with its assets, and who are we to criticize the school for doing something that is arguably financially sound?

If the residents of Richmond Hill care so much about this property, nothing is stopping the town from zoning the entire lot as rural open space. Perhaps the town could join forces with local astronomers to take over operation of the observatory and turn it into a tourist destination.
Click to expand...

"Arguably financially sound" decisions can often be stupid -- and it depends on how you do the math. Adding a few thousand more people to Richmond Hill -- along with noise, cars, pollution -- will have many hidden costs. If the price of jet fuel rises to the point that sending astronomers to Hawaii or Chile is no longer affordable, then this decision will also be bad for astronomy.

Supposedly, UofT is doing this for the benefit of students -- they want to "Reach for the stars". Well, the stars will still be there in 10, 20 or a billion years. A livable environment in the GTA could be gone in a decade if we keep making these "financially sound decisions". Last time I checked the GTA imports about 80% of its food. Will that be a financially sound decision in 5 or 10 years?
 
Chuck said:
I know what you're trying to get at, but this isn't the best example because you really can't compare St. George with the Observatory. It's anyone's guess what could be built at the Observatory because nothing really sits there now except for the Observatory itself. A lot is at stake in Richmond Hill! But St. George on the other hand is completely built out, and the overall land use couldn't change regardless of who owns it.

A much better example would be if U of T hypothetically owned High Park and used it as a forestry or wildlife research centre. Then, out of the blue, U of T decided to sell High Park to a developer.
Click to expand...

Funny you should say that. DDO was used for forestry teaching and research for many years. That's how the farmland got reforested. Why can't the people of Richmond Hill have the DDO as their own High Park. U of T needs to slow down this process to give the Town of Richmond Hill, the province and other interested parties a chance to make a deal.
 
Conversely, why shouldn't the Town and the Province and the other interested parties speed up their work? The University is not a charity to benefit suburbians who want to use the Universitys land as a park without paying for it.
 
AndreaPalladio said:
The University is not a charity to benefit suburbians who want to use the Universitys land as a park without paying for it.
Click to expand...

No, but the university is a public institution, not a private corporation acting on behalf of shareholders. Legally, it probably is closer to a charity.

The issue is not what their political/financial rights are, rather it is more to do with their role as a community member. No one said the town wouldn't or shouldn't pay for the land but they were not privy to what was going on with a significant piece of their real estate. Now they have to play catch up and will do what they can (heritage designation, zoning etc) to attempt to have a say in its future.

Obviously the university does not ACUTALLY owe Richmond Hill or its residents anything. But what does it owe them in terms of being a neighbour/tenant/citzen/guest in their house etc. ??

We could debate the scientific part of their argument endlessly but, for me, it really comes down to whether they did right by the people who will be affected by this (excepting U of T astronomy students)and my impression is that they have not.
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
No, but the university is a public institution, not a private corporation acting on behalf of shareholders. Legally, it probably is closer to a charity.

The issue is not what their political/financial rights are, rather it is more to do with their role as a community member. No one said the town wouldn't or shouldn't pay for the land but they were not privy to what was going on with a significant piece of their real estate. Now they have to play catch up and will do what they can (heritage designation, zoning etc) to attempt to have a say in its future.

Obviously the university does not ACUTALLY owe Richmond Hill or its residents anything. But what does it owe them in terms of being a neighbour/tenant/citzen/guest in their house etc. ??

We could debate the scientific part of their argument endlessly but, for me, it really comes down to whether they did right by the people who will be affected by this (excepting U of T astronomy students)and my impression is that they have not.
Click to expand...


Doing right, in this case, will be to get the highest possible price for the land. That's what the Trustees or Governors or whatever the board members at U of T are called owe the university. When the real estate market is at its peak, you don't sit around waiting for some town bureacrat to wake up and do something. It's not the town's real estate, it's the University's.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top