[nfitz]

The Star is obviously much more diplomatic but neither paper is exactly centrist when it comes to municipal politics.

Given how much time the Star spent trashing Miller, the left-wing, and the NDP, I wouldn't exactly call it leftist.

Though I've never seen any paper use such disturbingly prejudiced language as "leftard". Wow ... could any "journalist" be so utterly ignorant? Though perhaps not surprising given that this one has admitted to taking cash payments from Rob Ford.

 

[taal]

Anyone have any idea what land Toronto (the city) owns on the waterfront i.e. say Ford goes ahead with his plan to sell off whatever we own ?

Areas like easy bayfront are owned by waterfront toronto and I take it that's a different organization. Or is that owned by Hines now.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Waterfront Toronto is an organization that was created by all three levels of government to manage redevelopment of Waterfrond lands (including the West Don Lands and the Port Lands). Various parcels are owned by different levels of government. I don't believe that any formal ownership was transferred as part of the agreement with Waterfront Toronto.

I'm not sure if there's a handy document referencing who technically owns what -- would be useful to know given recent talk.

 

[CanadianNational]

Why is Doug Ford getting all of this warm and interested press? It puts him in the position of being authoritative by proxy. I don't like it.
This latest article in the Globe about Doug Ford's sudden waterfront stadium plans is buffoonery. Happily, instead of the usual trolling and sockpuppeting junk, there's a lot of reasoned and attentive comments pointing out the obvious: this isn't Detroit, the plans, funding and will is in place, and there is no need or desire for spur-of-the-moment destructive whims.

All that seems to go through these two's minds are cars, NFL teams, stadiums and....a monorail!? A monorail?!
Wait a second! OK, I don't even know where to start with that one.

Now, aside from the fact that there's no team to put in the imaginary stadium, and Hearn would have to be demolished - not imaginatively rehabilitated - to accomplish that and...and...Gucci, er, shopping, er...

It all produces a kind of tightening in the chest. Especially because Hines, developer of Bayside, was quick to point out in an article that they are touchy about governments maintaining the steadiness of their involvement for these major deals to go forward. The spectre of Hines getting cold feet about things is really worrisome. If this is the case, then the Ford's slagging of WasterfronToronto as being a waste could become the Ford's very own self-fulfilling prophecy, setting back waterfront development by generations.

The Ford(s) ignorance of all the planning, funding, waiting, development and fruition that has been steadily on the go is staggering. Their apparent willingness to just blow important, hard won and beneficial things off for no reason at all is really depressing. Awful.

 

[Solid Snake]

Hume: On the waterfront, Doug Ford needs a business lesson

http://www.thestar.com/news/article...rfront-doug-ford-needs-a-business-lesson?bn=1

The unravelling of the city continues. The action has moved now to the waterfront, where Toronto’s unelected mayor, Doug Ford, announced last week that government has no business in the affairs of urban revitalization.

What makes this latest pronouncement from Hogtown’s First Family so appalling is that it displays such deep ignorance about the one subject on which the Fords claim experience and expertise — business.

According to the councillor from Ward 2, Etobicoke North, Doug Ford, waterfront reclamation is a job for the private sector.

“It’s nothing against the folks at waterfront,†he declared last Wednesday, “but that was the biggest boondoggle the feds, the province and the city has ever done.â€

Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, the work of Waterfront Toronto, the tripartite agency created in 2001 by the federal, provincial and municipal governments, has been one of the city’s major success stories.

“You don’t subsidize the most valuable property in Canada to the tune of $10 million an acre,†Doug Ford continued. “You let the private sector buy it and let them develop it.â€

He’s dead right, and that’s exactly what’s happening, except for one small detail — the waterfront’s 2,000 acres were not “the most valuable property in Canada†until the agency stepped in a decade ago.

Since then it has turned a long-neglected lakeside wasteland into a place people can now imagine living and working. And just as important, it has made the waterfront a place where developers are willing to invest, so far to the tune of $1.5 billion.

No surprise, then, that it was the developers who rushed to defend Waterfront Toronto last week and provide the Fords with a lesson in how business works. Above all, business wants certainty, which is precisely what the Fords have destroyed.

No question the process has been slow and painful, but such is the nature of city-building. Toronto only has one waterfront and the pressure to get it right is intense, especially after the “condo curtain†that sprung up on Queens Quay before the corporation was set up.

As much as anything, Waterfront Toronto’s mandate was to ensure this sort of visionless development never happens again. The idea was that the agency would handle planning and infrastructure, and leave rebuilding to developers. So public-sector money has gone to creating the framework in which growth will occur. That means everything from sidewalks and sewers to parks and promenades. Most importantly, it includes a series of precincts plans that will lead to fully sustainable neighbourhoods based on urban principles.

Doug Ford likes to use the example of Chicago, his adopted home, and its waterfront. But if he looked a little closer, he would know that city adopted an identical approach to Toronto’s.

So far, the mayor hasn’t shown up at Waterfront Toronto, where he has a seat on the board, or toured the site. Were he to take a look, he’d find a lot has changed in this part of the city. Sugar Beach, Sherbourne Common, Corus House and the new George Brown College campus are part of an emerging landscape that will transform Toronto.

Clearly the time has come for one of Waterfront Toronto’s strongest supporters, federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, to have a chat with his old pals, the Fords. They may not get it, but he does. Flaherty has taken advantage of every opportunity to extoll the agency and its public/private strategy. He has held up Waterfront Toronto as a paragon of corporate and civic virtue as well as a model of co-operation between governments, sectors and soon, we hope, friends.

 

[Tewder]

The anti-Ford crowd doth protest a little too much here, even if they have some valid points. Waterfront development has indeed been slow and not without its politics, back-room deals and questionable choices. To portray it now as some untouchable and unblemished model of urban development/government planning is a little rich and I think that Hume's looking back through some rose-tinted glasses.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Any debate about the quality or cost-effectiveness of Waterfront Development projects just serve to distract from the Ford Nation's real intent, which is to sell city-owned land on the open market and use revenues to plug budget holes.

If the Fords were concerned about the specifics of Waterfront Toronto's work, they would surely have met with the WT CEO, attended board meetings (Ford is on the board), and just generally attempted to work within the established process. Instead, they sent out the attack dogs.

 

[pman]

Public sector projects

Though to be fair to WT, construction delays aren't limited to the waterfront. All public sector building projects in the GTA seem to drag on well past any reasonable completion date, and even past their own announced completion dates. Whether it's sidewalks on Bloor, streetcars on Spadina, or repaving Roncesvalles, the City demonstrates time after time that it just can't manage construction. Admittedly WT seems to have taken forever to produce any tangible results, but it's no worse than - for example - transit expansion. Toronto is great at planning - actually building not so much.

 

[Tewder]

I see both pman and graphicmatt's points, which is what makes this all a little murky for me. I completely understand that the Fords have an agenda but is it necessarily the wrong one? I want to know more first.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Admittedly WT seems to have taken forever to produce any tangible results, but it's no worse than - for example - transit expansion.

Seriously, I think that most of the people who complain about WT just don't ever go down to the Waterfront. You cannot go down to QQ in the summertime these days without seeing how much better an attraction it is than even five years ago, much less ten. The Central Waterfront -- from the Music Garden to the Spadina swamp to the boardwalk/finger piers/wavedecks -- is teeming with people. Trying to find a place for a pint on Watermark's deck (no restos facing the lake in QQT as recent as... three/four years ago?) is futile on a summer evening.

Now, the east is coming into focus. When GBC is finished, this will be a huge new plus! And WDL will transform a site that's been a royal thorn for Ontario and Toronto governements for years.

 

[taal]

The anti-Ford crowd doth protest a little too much here, even if they have some valid points. Waterfront development has indeed been slow and not without its politics, back-room deals and questionable choices. To portray it now as some untouchable and unblemished model of urban development/government planning is a little rich and I think that Hume's looking back through some rose-tinted glasses.

Oh I agree with you! But overall I'd say the benefits outweigh the delay and the few backroom deals that I'm sure took place.

I'm also very much inclined to believe the key here is selling off the land. The issue of speed or quality has nothing to do with it.


Now the only questions is, what can he sell off : - ).

Pretty silly though as it's a one time gain for next years budget. It's not like there are expenses associated with this.

The only thing that I can think of as a positive here from there point of view is if they sell it off to the private, loosen the grip and let developers go wild the increased property tax revenue will come sooner rather then later. But it's debatable this will even be a net gain! If you take into account all the services the city needs to add here. It's not the same as developing a condo in the entertaining district where everything is already ready to go from a city point of view.

 

[taal]

Honestly, if someone told me, east bayfront will go ahead as is I'd be happy with that . Everything else is so far off anyway.

 

[ttk77]

Isn't repurposing of the south side of Queens Quay west supposed to start this year? Has there been any official update on that?

 

[taal]

Isn't repurposing of the south side of Queens Quay west supposed to start this year? Has there been any official update on that?

Yes it's delayed indefinitely. They have funding for a 800m stretch and originally the plan was to do just that. They decided that just wouldn't be practical and are going to wait until the rest of the funding can be found. From where or when know one really knows. I think this equates to an indefite delay.

BTW, note - this isn't really directly related to any of Ford's polocies or decisions. This would have happened no matter who was elected. Now you can argue that someone else may have given them the funding from the Toronto level but even that is debatable.

 

[ttk77]

That is unfortunate. Of the central waterfront redevelopment plans I think that one had the potential to have the most impact, and was looking forward to more pedestrian space in the area. Queens Quay has become too much like a secondary commuter route to the Gardiner and Lakeshore.

...but I guess this is a bit off topic, other than to say that it will likely be a cold day in hell before the Ford brothers offer up the cash to see the project go ahead.