Downsview has seen a series of botched development plans in the past, one could only pray that City Planning (and the Feds, since much is still under their regulatory jurisdiction) gets it right.The Downsview subway station is underused, so there's certainly transit capacity available. Better than building thousands of more condo units downtown. Though I do hope if this comes to pass that they build more mid-rise condos. I suppose I'm using the wrong name for that station http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2017/04/ttc-renaming-downsview-station-sheppard-west-may
I agree on 'mid-rise', and there's a lot of pressure, ironically from *some* developers, to do it that way. I can't find it now, either the Star or Globe featured an op-ed piece on it last week. I was suitably impressed that many developers want to 'fit in' with the neighbourhood, not choke it with sky-rise. Partial fault lies with Province and the Planning Act and associated acts.
http://www.metronews.ca/views/2017/...ht-future-in-toronto-like-it-or-not-hume.htmlAs Toronto planners tell it, midrise development could well be this city’s saviour. Lining the main streets with four- to 11-storey buildings, they argue, would provide housing for thousands without overwhelming the neighbourhoods of which they are part.
So why are so many midrise projects greeted with howls of outrage by disapproving locals and/or unimpressed planners? Each one is treated as if it were an affront to civic good taste and municipal well-being. Getting the go-ahead for something as benign as a six-storey condo can be as arduous and expensive as a 60-storey tower.
The latest example is, of course, an eight-storey condo proposal for 321 Davenport Rd. It has turned neighbourhood luminaries including author Margaret Atwood and businessman Galen Weston into nattering nabobs of NIMBYism. Opponents of the project insist it will ruin the Annex and destroy their quality of life.
Hmmm. This isn’t the first time such arguments have been heard. Who could forget the saga of 109 Ossington Ave? Though not as august as the Annex, neighbourhood NIMBYs came out in force to fight the six-storey, 85-unit, condo. Though it replaced a used-car lot — a used-car lot! — residents complained it was too high, that it would block the sun, increase congestion and contribute to the gentrification of a street whose inhabitants apparently revelled in its griminess. [...]
The rail line and subway are both exquisitely located to service that land.
Yeah, I feel bad as if I'm 'touting' that, but the US market, as with the CSeries, is an essential one, and that appears to fit well with Airbus' already established presence there. Of course, the deal made so far is just for the CSeries Project, but symbiosis is obvious for the Q Series too. Whether a second assembly plant could be built in....Morocco, for instance (Airbus have a plant there) to utilize cheaper labour is another question.Alabama has a much better business enviromment than Ontario. Labour is much cheaper due to Right To Work http://statelaws.findlaw.com/alabama-law/alabama-right-to-work-laws.html, energy and transportation costs and corporate taxes are lower.
I was delving on that last night, don't have links handy, but yes, they have clear title to ownership. I was surprised since I would have thought it was leased, but it predates federal ownership adjacent. I'm curious if it would retain Transport Canada regulation if sold though?Is the runway wholly owned by Bombardier?
It is a silver lining to the loss of good jobs, but that land can and will be put to very good use.....one hopes!