What do you think of this project?

  • Total voters
    62
Not sure when you say "you" if you're speaking to me, so I will respond.
Your comments are off base because I support council's decision to move forward with this project.
Looking forward to seeing the city's list of other priorities for CRL money.
 
TAS said:
Looking forward to seeing the city's list of other priorities for CRL money.
Click to expand...
I think that they will be developed as other proposals are brought forward for other buildings in the CRL district -- I don't believe they can presuppose negotiations without someone sitting across the table from them. I am sure that they have a wish list; but I doubt that it is set in stone.
 
What's most interesting for me is how the vote played out. Looks like Stevenson had very little support and doesn't seem to have found many allies in advance of the meeting. Not sure if this is any indication of how things will break going forward, but it seems the mayor has the largest faction of councillors behind him.
 
I'm not sure that we can speculate or attribute very much to this one given everything... but I am now paying attention when voting occurs.
 
IanO said:
I'm not sure that we can speculate or attribute very much to this one given everything... but I am now paying attention when voting occurs.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Stevenson had full council support (?) for her previous motion for admin to come back with proposal/framework of closing a section of 102 Ave to vehicular traffic.
But it will be interesting to see how various issues play out such as the Gondola.
 
IanO said:
Keep in mind that both Toronto and Montreal have extensive pedway systems to combat the winter months that are well used, active and provide options for people. I am not a fan of pedways, but certainly understand their appeal and the importance of buildings being connected to them (versus not). Often times that can preclude you from being included in an RFP process.

Let's continue to work on strengthening the experience at grade so that more people choose that option more often.
Click to expand...
I'll add that it's not binary, it's entirely possible to have a functioning pedway system and good experience at grade. Like many others I used Toronto's PATH system extensively in cold winter months, however, when it was nice outside I'd commute on the street because it's more pleasant. On bad weather days the existence of the PATH actually got me out a lot more often than I otherwise would have. Instead of ordering in food / online shopping / staying in on a cold days I was able to comfortably go out and run errands, go to restaurants, shop etc.

I'd argue that a well thought out pedway system actually helps the vibrancy of downtown by providing more commuting volume on cold days. On warm days no one wants to be walking underground anyways. Of course for this to be true there has to be a good experience at grade and services that draw people, but I wouldn't say the pedway takes away from that.
 
Do we have the density to deserve an expansive and expensive underground pedway system like Toronto or Montreal? Or should this underground project be one of the last for a good long while?

I think I've heard in the past we don't have the density to deserve cutting down traffic lanes for the purpose of active transportation and creating more interesting, quieter and safer mainstreets but do we have the density to want to expand our underground pedway system which costs significantly more than those mainstreet ideas?
 
I love development timelines like that, the long term planning of it is beautiful. Land purchased in the 90s, phase one built out in the late 00s, phase two to be built out by mid 20s. Crazy to think this project could span folk's entire careers.
 
nv96 said:
I love development timelines like that, the long term planning of it is beautiful. Land purchased in the 90s, phase one built out in the late 00s, phase two to be built out by mid 20s. Crazy to think this project could span folk's entire careers.
Click to expand...
they are beautiful but they are very difficult time frames to manage.

it’s easy to remember and count the number of mayors we’ve had but what’s really crazy is when you try and add up the number of councillors and city managers and department heads and planners and transportation engineers and city plans and downtown plans and neighborhood plans and new zoning bylaws and abutting projects etc. it’s quite the revolving door of ever changing faces and priorities that are changing too often and too often conflicting with each other.

sometimes the only real continuity there is is the developer and his or her vision. that’s why there isn’t enough acknowledgment for how important certainty is for a developer while still retaining enough flexibility to respond to changing market conditions and trends.
 
^^^^ If you are referring to the Opportunity Cost of This versus That, then I am quite happy with the This. From the open forum -- the discussion revolved around what had been agreed to by a previous Council and the years-long discussions that had led to the current agreement between City and Developer in terms of how the then "potential" CRL would be spent (for what and for what end purposes). To even suggest that there was a "lost opportunity" is a red herring in light of the length and intensity of discussions. The administrator acting for the City side of the negotiations handled herself quite well and was brilliant in her presentation and access to key data points. No need to thrust a stick in the spokes of progress.
 
I'm not disputing THIS versus THAT, but you have to admit that there is only so much to go around and so how do we prioritize, distribute and measure the success or ROI on these investments.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top