[ponyboy]

If I had a choice, I would sell this parcel at 28 Bathurst in order to fund the purchase of the parcel near John and Richmond since that area seems to need more parks than this one does (especially if all these other parks in the area are happening). Better yet, find the money to pay for both. However, if money available is scarce, it wouldn't be fair to spend it all on park space for one neighbourhood. The population growth in this area has been phenomenal, no doubt. If raildeck park is to happen, I think they will need to allow towers along the edges to pay for it.

 

[ADRM]

If I had a choice, I would sell this parcel at 28 Bathurst in order to fund the purchase of the parcel at John and Richmond since that area seems to need more parks than this one does (especially if all these other parks in the area are happening). Better yet, find the money to pay for both. However, if money available is scarce, it wouldn't be fair to spend it all on park space for one neighbourhood. The population growth in this area has been phenomenal, no doubt.

Grange Park is like a 3-minute walk from John and Richmond; it's yuge and it's in the midst of a mega-makeover, and RDP definitely isn't gonna happen anytime soon and very possibly never. And the parks fund is swimming with cash (unless your chosen strategy is to hoard it all for RDP).

 

[ponyboy]

Victorial Memorial Square, Fort York, and the planned park on the south side of the bridge (Mouth of the Creek) are all closer to 28 Bathurst than the Grange Park is to the John/Richmond parcel that councilor Cressy and others want to acquire for a square/park. Canoe Landing is about the same distance and Stanley park is also very close given the new path. I think we can agree that hoarding all the cash for raildeck park is not a fair way to invest in public spaces.

edit: to follow-up I checked the distances

walking distances (according to Google)

From Richmond/John parcel (potential new park/square) --
5 min to grange park
https://goo.gl/maps/sP1eUU3yXvj

From 28 Bathurst parcel --
3 min to Vic Memorial Square
https://goo.gl/maps/GXsdgHYQSCH2

2 min to Mouth of Creek park
https://goo.gl/maps/pdbAAqjaBex

3 min to Fort York pedestrian entrance
https://goo.gl/maps/LiS48gtKKXr

7 min to Canoe Landing park
https://goo.gl/maps/CSxC83yPhqS2

8 min to South Stanley Park (via Wellington, but would be 5 min along new path)
https://goo.gl/maps/cvTg5mCnhC72
same distance for the coming Ordinance St park.

10 min to Little Norway Park
https://goo.gl/maps/Frptkbefp352

It would be 2 minutes from the raildeck park, if that ever happens.

I imagine the daytime use of the Richmond/John square would be greater because proximity to employment, which is growing in the "entertainment district". And there would be a lot of value being along the John cultural/entertainment corridor, and near a lot of new residential in that area.

 

[scrappyTO]

Council passed the motion and we have new parkland! I'm very happy for selfish reasons (my view), but also because the neighbourhood really is under intense development pressure and this is very economical, needed park space for thousands of new residents of developments already under construction. This site will be a great gateway from Front and Bathurst to the future railpath expansion and destructor development. I suppose this thread can move from Buildings to Transportation and Infrastructure.

 

[Jacob Lisgar]

Looks like build Toronto is looking to get reimbursed for expenses related to development costs incurred for this site amounting to $1,266,000.
Is it me or does that seem like a lot of money to spend on community consultations and planning work just to determine that the remediation costs make it prohibitive to sell and build on the site. You would think the well paid staff at Build Toronto would have done a bit of due diligence before spending our tax dollars, and now they want the parks department to pay for it.
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-111949.pdf

 

[ADRM]

Looks like build Toronto is looking to get reimbursed for expenses related to development costs incurred for this site amounting to $1,266,000.
Is it me or does that seem like a lot of money to spend on community consultations and planning work just to determine that the remediation costs make it prohibitive to sell and build on the site. You would think the well paid staff at Build Toronto would have done a bit of due diligence before spending our tax dollars, and now they want the parks department to pay for it.
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2018/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-111949.pdf

I dunno, the cost breakdown is included near the end of that staff report; which of the most substantial line items seems egregious to you? Community consultations, for example, account for just $19K of those costs...

 

[Automation Gallery]

Either way there is no doubt city spends money foolishly ...I've worked for various company's that have had the city of Toronto on blanket purchase orders and charge them the list price on everything, that's 40-50% more than the trade pays,
never once was there an audit or issues of over payment from the city, oh well

 

[maestro]

In my experience, everyone overcharges large corporations like the city. They don't really have a choice and that's probably why politicians that get elected for curbing waste usually end up addressing it with service cutbacks.

 

[Jacob Lisgar]

I dunno, the cost breakdown is included near the end of that staff report; which of the most substantial line items seems egregious to you? Community consultations, for example, account for just $19K of those costs...

I can't say that anything seems out of line in terms of cost, but the decision making to spend 311,000$ on city planning fees only to determine that it is not feasible to build on the site seems a bit much. I worked for a corporate real estate brokerage and if a client had vacant site we would spend a few days doing some research, appraise it and put it out to market, potential purchasers would then do their own due dilligence. we would never tell a client to spend over a million dollars on studies and development fees to determine that there is no financial feasibility. The environmental work alone should have indicated that there was serious issue with the site and going forwarding with planning and architectural drawings would be a costly dead end.
My criticism is that I feel that Build Toronto is supposed to be this great organization full of real estate professionals and this seems like a huge waste of money that they are now trying to pass onto the Parks Department.

 

[ADRM]

Didn't get a pic, but there were a few workers and a small excavator on-site here a few days back.

 

[drum118]

July 04
Work underway on the Temporary Shipping Container Market (28 Bathurst St, Tusk Global Limited, 4s, LGA Architectural Partners)

 

[Red Mars]

Pics taken Aug 1, 2018

 

[Red Mars]

Pics taken Sept 1, 2018

 

[Patch]

Update on progress

Also I'm note sure if these coloured renderings from LGA's Site were ever shared here... apologies if they have been. Looks like it'll be named Stackt?

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Update on progress

View attachment 157183
View attachment 157184

Also I'm note sure if these coloured renderings from LGA's Site were ever shared here... apologies if they have been. Looks like it'll be named Stackt?

View attachment 157185
View attachment 157186
View attachment 157187
View attachment 157188

This should be made permanent. It oozes creativity and I love that.