bmiller
Active Member
Ive read 2 different size figures. One was 5 acres, and the other 7.5 acres. 11 acres may include adjacent lands if there is any.
- Thread starter themarc
- Start date
CN Tower
Banned
Well done i42. Way to represent the forum.
This is an ultra rare opportunity for the government to actually dictate good planning on developers. They can actually decide what the project should look like and sell the land to a developer who agrees to their proposal. This goes far beyond a couple hundred million dollars that will no doubt be squandered by the free spending Wynne government. Here we actually have an opportunity to shape a 10 acre+ prime parcel of land beyond just zoning and site plan controls. We can shape the architecture too, something most here have been steadfastly critical of in so many projects.
This sale should really be run by a top notch architectural firm or consortium to ensure that the right project gets built instead of just squeezing max dollars out of the sale. That would be short sighted and will likely leave an indelible stain on the city's waterfront.
So if you have seen the YouTube video which Jack and Ed posted on the front page, instead of the four second bit that ended up in the CBC news piece, you will see 1 minute and 40 seconds of the interview from which it was taken. There was maybe up to another minute which is not even included in the video on the front page.
One never knows of course which bits are going to be taken for the news piece, but reporter Mike Crawley wove some of my other points into his narration as well.
Something which does not appear in either the YouTube video or the completed CBC News bit, is that the City, through a body called the Toronto Port Lands Company, owns a strip of land which runs through the site where an old railroad spur was located. You will find it if you look through the Lower Yonge Precinct Plan, or go into the front page story which Marcus Mitanis wrote. In that story, the aerial view shows the City-owned land as the uncoloured strip running between the two wine-stain coloured blocks. No one seems to have mentioned that piece of the puzzle in any of the reports yet. It suggests to me that the City does have more leverage here than they would otherwise over a piece of land wholly owned by the Province.
To the west, Pinnacle still wants to build much more than Waterfront Toronto wants to see on their property. I would be happy to see a 90-storey tower built on Pinnacle's site, and I will admit to having no problem with the density that they are proposing with the other buildings. I believe the Hariri Pontarini plan for that site is gorgeous, that it will serve to landmark the south end of Yonge Street beautifully. I do not buy at all the argument in the Lower Yonge Precinct Plan that the heights should taper down from buildings on the west side of Yonge Street.
That said, once the development plan is sorted out for the Pinnacle lands, I would be happy to see the LCBO Lands buildings taper down in height from that towards Jarvis Street. (The Daniels Waterfront property is located on the other side of Jarvis Street, and we have yet to find out what the final heights for those buildings will be.) I agree with the Lower Yonge Precinct Plan that another park square should be included within the redevelopment of the LCBO Lands.
In any case, there is much, much more to come on all of this.
42
One never knows of course which bits are going to be taken for the news piece, but reporter Mike Crawley wove some of my other points into his narration as well.
Something which does not appear in either the YouTube video or the completed CBC News bit, is that the City, through a body called the Toronto Port Lands Company, owns a strip of land which runs through the site where an old railroad spur was located. You will find it if you look through the Lower Yonge Precinct Plan, or go into the front page story which Marcus Mitanis wrote. In that story, the aerial view shows the City-owned land as the uncoloured strip running between the two wine-stain coloured blocks. No one seems to have mentioned that piece of the puzzle in any of the reports yet. It suggests to me that the City does have more leverage here than they would otherwise over a piece of land wholly owned by the Province.
To the west, Pinnacle still wants to build much more than Waterfront Toronto wants to see on their property. I would be happy to see a 90-storey tower built on Pinnacle's site, and I will admit to having no problem with the density that they are proposing with the other buildings. I believe the Hariri Pontarini plan for that site is gorgeous, that it will serve to landmark the south end of Yonge Street beautifully. I do not buy at all the argument in the Lower Yonge Precinct Plan that the heights should taper down from buildings on the west side of Yonge Street.
That said, once the development plan is sorted out for the Pinnacle lands, I would be happy to see the LCBO Lands buildings taper down in height from that towards Jarvis Street. (The Daniels Waterfront property is located on the other side of Jarvis Street, and we have yet to find out what the final heights for those buildings will be.) I agree with the Lower Yonge Precinct Plan that another park square should be included within the redevelopment of the LCBO Lands.
In any case, there is much, much more to come on all of this.
42
Last edited:
DSC
Superstar
The rail spur on this land is in process of being sold off. See June Council, EX42.7 :
City Council Decision
City Council on June 10, 11, 12 and 13, 2014, adopted the following:
1. City Council consent to the disposition of two rail spurs known municipally as 15 Freeland Street and 15 Cooper Street on the terms identified in Confidential Attachment 3 to the report (May 12, 2014) from the City Manager.
2. City Council direct that a declaration by the City, in its capacity as sole shareholder of Toronto Port Lands Company, be delivered to the Board of Directors of Toronto Port Lands Company directing that, once the Properties have been sold, Toronto Port Lands Company use the net proceeds from the sale of the Project to provide a dividend to the City, in a specific amount to be determined by the Toronto Port Lands Company Board of Directors, in consultation with the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer.
City Council Decision
City Council on June 10, 11, 12 and 13, 2014, adopted the following:
1. City Council consent to the disposition of two rail spurs known municipally as 15 Freeland Street and 15 Cooper Street on the terms identified in Confidential Attachment 3 to the report (May 12, 2014) from the City Manager.
2. City Council direct that a declaration by the City, in its capacity as sole shareholder of Toronto Port Lands Company, be delivered to the Board of Directors of Toronto Port Lands Company directing that, once the Properties have been sold, Toronto Port Lands Company use the net proceeds from the sale of the Project to provide a dividend to the City, in a specific amount to be determined by the Toronto Port Lands Company Board of Directors, in consultation with the Deputy City Manager and Chief Financial Officer.
Aha! Thanks for that info DSC. Very interesting!
42
42
DSC
Superstar
Yes, I am not sure the confidential info has been released yet - I suppose it MAY try to preserve the City's veto power over something?
Big Daddy
Senior Member
The kind of control you speak about is very "communist China" esque. Who wants such a pure, planned to the letter development? check out St.James town to see what happens when "current" planning practices try to control everything. What makes a city like New York or London really great is all the variations and uniques spaces created by the almost caotic mix and groupings of its architecture.
Too much control is not a great thing.
Personally I believe the city needs to designate areas where height is allowed. There are so many places downtown now where very tall buildings create unwanted shadows and too much density. Density needs to be spread out from just the financial district and this site is one of those areas where height limits should be eliminated since there is little around here to negatively affect and it would help to spread out the density.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Isn't St James Town an example of the complete opposite? The city rezoned the neighbourhood to allow for highrises and private developers went wild shoving as many buildings in as they could, until the city finally clamped down again?
If you're looking for a centrally planned neighbourhood from that era, you should point to Regent Park instead (or Moss Park).
CN Tower
Banned
LCBO HQ is a public asset. So here's a chance for the public to get back something ever lasting and not simply $250 million for the careless politicos of the day to squander on Samsung Windmill farms.
Hire the best architects and planners (private sector) out there and design something that goes beyond the cookie cutter box model that private capital needs to generate a profit. If that means the site ultimately sells for a discount to an unrestricted sale well don't we as citizens reap dividends from higher quality design for decades to come?
Or would you rather just have another Cityplace, Lakeshore West, Lanterra, Conservatory, Bazis, etc. fake facade mess to tarnish our landscape?
TOareaFan
Superstar
What you seem to be asking for is that the province become far more than just a vendor of land (albeit land with some development restrictions).....you seem to be wanting the province to step in and undertake, at least, the very first stages of the actual development.
DSC
Superstar
Don't forget that this site is within (in fact is most of) the Lower Yonge Precinct and Council just approved the outline of the Precinct Plan for it. See: http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2014.TE34.95 This Plan will not deal with the design of new buildings but it does set the framework and is probably as much as government can (or should) do to ensure 'sympathetic" development. It will be important to ensure the actual Plan (due in 2015) sets clear standards etc etc.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Personally I find the guidelines a bit too conservative in terms of density. A happy medium between that and say the 1 Yonge proposal would have been perfect. The general notion of stepping down in height as one gets closer to the lake is great though.
AoD
AoD
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
You quoted me, so I'm not sure if you're directing this at me or Big Daddy. Anyway, I'm in total agreement that, in the grand scheme of things, a one-time payment of $250 million into the Province's coffers is not as important as making sure this land is developed properly.
Last edited:
Mongo
Senior Member
What might happen:
1. Province asks for a minimum bid of $250M.
2. No takers for a year.
3. Somebody in the Provincial government asks why there have been no takers. Answer: with the development restrictions in place for that site, the developers have all concluded that it's impossible to earn enough revenue to make sufficient profit from buying and developing the site to justify the cost of raising the needed money. The Province has three choices: One, do nothing. Two, lower the asking price of the land parcel. Three, arrange with the City for the development restrictions on the parcel to be eased.
4. The Province eventually decides on option three. Once the development restrictions have been reduced, the parcel quickly sells for the full $250M or more.
1. Province asks for a minimum bid of $250M.
2. No takers for a year.
3. Somebody in the Provincial government asks why there have been no takers. Answer: with the development restrictions in place for that site, the developers have all concluded that it's impossible to earn enough revenue to make sufficient profit from buying and developing the site to justify the cost of raising the needed money. The Province has three choices: One, do nothing. Two, lower the asking price of the land parcel. Three, arrange with the City for the development restrictions on the parcel to be eased.
4. The Province eventually decides on option three. Once the development restrictions have been reduced, the parcel quickly sells for the full $250M or more.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Mongo:
I don't know - are there any extant examples of the province asking the city to modify its' zoning bylaw so that it can fetch a higher price for its' property? It sounds like a potentially problematical use of provincial authority to me.
AoD
I don't know - are there any extant examples of the province asking the city to modify its' zoning bylaw so that it can fetch a higher price for its' property? It sounds like a potentially problematical use of provincial authority to me.
AoD