[jcam]

Purchasing land may fall in-camera at the Board or Council due to the commercial sensitivities around competing for price.

 

[centralblue]

I have not seen anything that announced or documented a sale of the Obico terminal lands. We do know that the Canpa Sub itself was purchased by ML.

The MPAC About My Property Database, which can be accessed by anyone paying property taxes, has a notation against that property stating "No sale since 2012". That's about as good a source as one can get without going downtown to the Registry Office and paying for a title search.

I don't think it's likely that the City's governance would have allowed the City to buy that land, either directly or via TTC, without publicly divulging the sale to Council and/or the TTC Board. That's because I'm assuming that the dollar value of the sale would be above what senior city officials have as their individual spending authority. I could be wrong on that.

As for ML, with their weak governance and lack of transparency, they may already own the Obico property, plus the Hope Diamond and half the European railway system. We'd never know until the Minister felt it serves his interests to call a photo op to announce the sale.

- Paul

City Council passed a motion to for city staff continue negotiations for the property back at the March Council meeting. http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2017.GM18.13 I would guess they are still ongoing.

 

[crs1026]

Purchasing land may fall in-camera at the Board or Council due to the commercial sensitivities around competing for price.

I can understand that discussions and Council debate would have to remain in camera while negotiations are in progress. But once the deal has closed, shouldn’t the transaction be divulged? That does not mean the price is divulged, although I have a lot of difficulty with any ‘secret’ deal in a taxpayer pay situation. We are not well served by this between CP/CN and GO. How would we feel if the price of the Flexities were kept secret?

- Paul

 

[jcam]

I can understand that discussions and Council debate would have to remain in camera while negotiations are in progress. But once the deal has closed, shouldn’t the transaction be divulged? That does not mean the price is divulged, although I have a lot of difficulty with any ‘secret’ deal in a taxpayer pay situation. We are not well served by this between CP/CN and GO. How would we feel if the price of the Flexities were kept secret?

- Paul

I agree with publicizing afterwards, but if the City is indeed pre-close on something like this, I'm just saying its likely not surprising we haven't heard something public about it.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If the TTC buys the Obico Yard for Line 2 subway trains, would there be room to put in a replacement garage for the Queensway garage?

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

A north-south LRT in Etobicoke would be much better on Islington than Kipling. A lot of empty land in New Toronto to intensify densely.

Unfortunately the Willowbrooke Yard gets in the way.

 

[crs1026]

A north-south LRT in Etobicoke would be much better on Islington than Kipling. A lot of empty land in New Toronto to intensify densely.

Unfortunately the Willowbrooke Yard gets in the way.

One could make the case for either. Ridership is currently heavier on Kipling, and the Six Points redevelopment may fuel some related growth south of Dundas faster than anything happens on Islington. Humber College anchors Kipling at Lake Shore, and there has been lots of redevelopment along Lake Shore close to Kipling. There is one large residential development going in at Islington and Norseman, but it's townhomes.

A big question is how to retain sufficient employment lands in Etobicoke. The whole area is ripe for redevelopment, but that's the problem. Allow one rezoning, and the lineup of landowners seeking equal treatment will form. It's a domino proposition.

A second question - and it's not as trivial as it may sound - is how to maintain truck access to those industrial lands if centre median LRT goes in down there. The volume of 18-wheelers is heavy. The solutions that we don't mind that constrain autos - no left turns, etc - can really mess up trucks with their larger turning radius etc. Channelling all that truck traffic onto a subset of the current roads will be quite disagreeable. Unlike single passenger auto traffic, which we hope will evaporate, better transit won't eliminate the trucks.

- Paul

 

[muller877]

One could make the case for either. Ridership is currently heavier on Kipling, and the Six Points redevelopment may fuel some related growth south of Dundas faster than anything happens on Islington. Humber College anchors Kipling at Lake Shore, and there has been lots of redevelopment along Lake Shore close to Kipling. There is one large residential development going in at Islington and Norseman, but it's townhomes.

A big question is how to retain sufficient employment lands in Etobicoke. The whole area is ripe for redevelopment, but that's the problem. Allow one rezoning, and the lineup of landowners seeking equal treatment will form. It's a domino proposition.

A second question - and it's not as trivial as it may sound - is how to maintain truck access to those industrial lands if centre median LRT goes in down there. The volume of 18-wheelers is heavy. The solutions that we don't mind that constrain autos - no left turns, etc - can really mess up trucks with their larger turning radius etc. Channelling all that truck traffic onto a subset of the current roads will be quite disagreeable. Unlike single passenger auto traffic, which we hope will evaporate, better transit won't eliminate the trucks.

- Paul

I also wonder how we switch from low-density industrial. I drove along Kipling & North Queen yesterday and there is a huge opportunity for continued growth in the number of employees in this area. And many of them need transit.

Have other cities figured out how to increased industrial density? Once factories did not have to be along a rail line it seems like everything is one story.

Ideas that I have
- TTC takes the lead and avoids a 1-story rail yard (buses on the 2nd level)
- use the south portion of the land to create an industrial incubator (cheap rent for potential large employment opportunities down the line)
- property tax holidays for industrial expansion that are upwards

I just hope the ROW doesn't turn into a rail yard that would suck the life out of any potential for this area.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Higher density industrial can be achieved by reducing parking, landscaping, and setback requirements, allowing more industrial activity on less land. Australia has done this, and they fit a lot more industrial activity in smaller areas, while still maintaining the single storey warehouse format. It just isn't surrounded by unnecessary landscaping and parking. Most industrial properties in Etobicoke have a ring of asphalt around them to allow vehicles to travel the entire width of the property - this is completely unnecessary and a waste of space. Vehicle access on properties is only needed to loading and parking areas.

Mind you this will be more difficult in an already subdivided environment like south etobicoke.

Australian industrial park:

Canadian industrial park. Same scale:

 

[CapitalSeven]

Dumb trees. Cut 'em down.