CityPlaceN1
Senior Member
No need for a park here if Rail Deck Park is built as proposed. Sell the land and use the money for it.
|
|
|
No need for a park here if Rail Deck Park is built as proposed. Sell the land and use the money for it.
Our client proposes to develop a mixed use commercial and entertainment destination using the installation of shipping containers as the main form of buildings on the subject lands. Tusk Global is leasing the property from the City to adaptively reuse this site on an interim basis. The subject lands are subject to contamination which has created specific development constraints for the site. As a result, the intention is to provide an interim use that will not foreclose on the future development and remediation of the lands. The use of shipping containers responds to that intention as the containers can be installed and removed quickly.
I am confused by this application. There is an existing planning application to develop the land by Build Toronto, and the local councillor is trying to rezone the land for a public park. Why would anyone put so much effort into an application on land they do not own. To make this feasible the city would have to lease them the lot, which is in terrible condition, for many years to make any money. Any idea who is behind this scheme?
Nothing wrong with that....... could be re-development or a re-birth of the Front street extension now that the Gardiner will be tolledbefore a more involved redevelopment potentially occurs in the future? What's wrong with that approach?
All that talk is in a perfect world, not going to happen until we choke to death with traffic...all this development will not only increase delivery trucks, but trade vehicles (roofers, electricians, plumbers, elevator technicians, heating and air conditioning guys, and so on,Public transit, cycling, walking. Who is kidding whom that we can fit more cars on the road? We need that space for transit and delivery vehicles. The Front Street extension wouldn't help alleviate traffic substantially, and would only encourage more driving in a city that can't realistically handle more single occupant vehicles.
42