[taal]

The Chicago park would have not worked well here anyway .... The location isn't great enough, in my opinion, to become a huge tourist hit. So in that sense, it's good we didn't waste the money on that ...

Speaking of which, exactly how much was the park at Chicago - the half a billion figure someone quoted can't be right .......

 

[BobBob]

I think it was Concord that paid for the park, not "we".

 

[taal]

I think it was Concord that paid for the park, not "we".

Well sure you can think of it like that but ... the money would have been given to the city one way or another due to the development so we could have chosen to spend it on something else ... moreover, they city could have contributed a lot more $$$ for a nicer park if they wanted too.

 

[marcus_a_j]

It's called parkland dedication and Section 37 fees for an increase in height and density. The park was always in the Secondary Plan for the area and no matter who the developer was, they would have had to build or amend the Plan. They could have just given the cash to the City for the park, but it's probably best just to build it themselves. CityPlace purchasers paid for the park when they bought their units.

 

[Tewder]

^^^
What Chicago got has no relation to what this is.

Why not though? Comparing Toronto to Chicago is not the stretch that comparing toronto to NYC/London/Paris or even San Francisco is. Did Chicago set out to 'build' a tourist attraction? No, they set out to build a beautiful public space, the success of which means that people and tourists do come, as with the waterfront and with urban streetscapes/public spaces in general. I'm not suggesting that Toronto should get a MP here per se, where as you say the scale and mandate are somewhat different, but we do need to start expecting and demanding a better level of quality and finesse. The design at City Place was compromised and it shows. The quality has been cheapened and it shows. Based on these criteria alone it pales to MP, regarless of size, scale or tourism expectations.

 

[taal]

Why not though? Comparing Toronto to Chicago is not the stretch that comparing toronto to NYC/London/Paris or even San Francisco is. Did Chicago set out to 'build' a tourist attraction? No, they set out to build a beautiful public space, the success of which means that people and tourists do come, as with the waterfront and with urban streetscapes/public spaces in general. I'm not suggesting that Toronto should get a MP here per se, where as you say the scale and mandate are somewhat different, but we do need to start expecting and demanding a better level of quality and finesse. The design at City Place was compromised and it shows. The quality has been cheapened and it shows. Based on these criteria alone it pales to MP, regarless of size, scale or tourism expectations.

No one is saying we can't compare Toronto to Chicago ... sure we can, but not for this park. This isn't even a very ideal location for a great park in my opinion - it's not a bad location but it's not quite accessible enough / well traveled - yes that might change in the future.

Also, stop and think about the $$$ difference here for a second - sure Toronto could have spent the money and got you a MP with all the frills but say good by to the waterfront projects. There's only so much money to go around. It's pretty silly when members on this forum start demanding every single project get the attention an extremely expensive project would.

Now, to be fair, I agree the real one at fault here is city place ... but you might be able to justify it as follows - maybe city places contribution was only 8 million - maybe the city wasn't willing to contribute anymore, hence we get this instead of the full version.

 

[Tewder]

Did you even read my post beyond the first line?????

Nobody is arguing that the scale of City Place Park, and therefore the price tag etc, is different from MP. We're talking about level of finish and quality, and these are vastly different. It is not an absurd point of comparison to look at the levels of quality (again, not scale or size etc) that we get compared to another similar sized city within our own geographic region (Great Lakes).

 

[taal]

Did you even read my post beyond the first line?????

Nobody is arguing that the scale of City Place Park, and therefore the price tag etc, is different from MP. We're talking about level of finish and quality, and these are vastly different. It is not an absurd point of comparison to look at the levels of quality (again, not scale or size etc) that we get compared to another similar sized city within our own geographic region (Great Lakes).

I guess you didn't read my last paragraph did you ...

quality == money, that's what your not getting as well - you're still set on comparing the two parks, quite evident by your last line

 

[Tewder]

... as you say the city didn't pay for this park. The plan and design were put forth and approved, presumably based on cost. Why should we be seeing major compromises on this. The fact that the city wouldn't top up for any overruns is sort of part of the problem though too. Also, as for the comparison to MP issue price is relative to scale and size, real vs relative cost in other words.

 

[taal]

... but the city didn't pay for this park. The plan and design were put forth and approved, presumably based on cost. Why should we be seeing major compromises on this. Also, as for the comparison to MP issue price is relative to scale and size, real vs relative cost in other words.

If the half a billion quote further back in this thread is anywhere near accurate I don't care about relative costs or scale

Regarding the renderings ... we've learned to put almost 0 faith in renderings for buildings this should probably be the same. We don't know who's really at fault here though, I'll give you that much ... did the city know they were going to cheep out (most likely seeing how they would have needed to submit comprehensive plans)

 

[Tewder]

Yes, there are always excuses and somebody to point the finger at which is part of the frustration. Again however, I don't think the idea is to take the MP comparison so literally. It's about quality of finish and integrity of design and not so much about the scale and number of art installations or epic grandeur of the space etc. Some of the elements at City Place are great. It is the basic park-scaping in and between that lets us down when we were mostly pretty happy with just respecting the original design put forth which did seem appropriate and in scale with this site. I don't know that this sort of thing raises the price from 8 million to half a billion...

 

[taal]

Yes, there are always excuses and somebody to point the finger at which is part of the frustration. Again however, I don't think the idea is to take the MP comparison so literally. It's about quality of finish and integrity of design and not so much about the scale and number of art installations or epic grandeur of the space etc. Some of the elements at City Place are great. It is the basic park-scaping in and between that lets us down when we were mostly pretty happy with just respecting the original design put forth which did seem appropriate and in scale with this site. I don't know that this sort of thing raises the price from 8 million to half a billion...

So perfect, we've agreed to scrap the MP comparison

But I understand your frustration, it's the little things that really make things and that's whats missing in some elements of this park. Have you seen it in person yet btw?

Some elements are really nice, and for the most part, I'm sure this will be a well used park overtime. So it' meets it's purpose form a functionality point of view. However, it's sad to think a couple more million would have made it a lot nicer ... maybe ...

 

[Torontovibe]

Yes, there are always excuses and somebody to point the finger at which is part of the frustration. Again however, I don't think the idea is to take the MP comparison so literally. It's about quality of finish and integrity of design and not so much about the scale and number of art installations or epic grandeur of the space etc. Some of the elements at City Place are great. It is the basic park-scaping in and between that lets us down when we were mostly pretty happy with just respecting the original design put forth which did seem appropriate and in scale with this site. I don't know that this sort of thing raises the price from 8 million to half a billion...

Integrity of design in Toronto?

This is a city where you are almost never given, what you are promised. The city could stop that at any time, yet they choose to bury their head in the sand. Make developers build their projects exactly like the renderings and things would change very quickly. Buildings should ONLY go on sale after all design features are established and materials can NOT be changed. You would probably see renderings of a lesser quality but at least you would know what to expect. We would not have disappointments like Cityplace and Cityplace Park. It's city council's fault.

So perfect, we've agreed to scrap the MP comparison

But I understand your frustration, it's the little things that really make things and that's whats missing in some elements of this park. Have you seen it in person yet btw?

Some elements are really nice, and for the most part, I'm sure this will be a well used park overtime. So it' meets it's purpose form a functionality point of view. However, it's sad to think a couple more million would have made it a lot nicer ... maybe ...

You could put a toxic dump in downtown Toronto and it would be well used. (mostly as a toilet by dog walkers) That's a meaningless statement, about being well used. Near my place is an empty field and guess what, it's well used. (again by people taking their dogs for a crap while socializing with other dog walkers) What does that say about the tiny bit of field, NOTHING! (except fido needs to poop)

 

[taal]

You could put a toxic dump in downtown Toronto and it would be well used. (mostly as a toilet by dog walkers) That's a meaningless statement, about being well used. Near my place is an empty field and guess what, it's well used. (again by people taking their dogs for a crap while socializing with other dog walkers) What does that say about the tiny bit of field, NOTHING! (except fido needs to poop)

"Well loved" maybe?

 

[Mike in TO]

Integrity of design in Toronto?

This is a city where you are almost never given, what you are promised. The city could stop that at any time, yet they choose to bury their head in the sand. Make developers build their projects exactly like the renderings and things would change very quickly. Buildings should ONLY go on sale after all design features are established and materials can NOT be changed. You would probably see renderings of a lesser quality but at least you would know what to expect. We would not have disappointments like Cityplace and Cityplace Park. It's city council's fault.

Council does not have the legislative tools to implement some rather restrictive provisions you've suggested based on some peoples desire to have some water-colour painting / rendering equal exact reality.

Material changes are sometimes necessary; buildings aren't fully designed down to the last detail when projects open for sales and suppliers and manufactures change all the time – it takes many years to bring a site through the planning / sales / construction / occupancy / after-sales service stages . Building designs are based on blue-prints, architectural plans, electrical plans etc - not a drawing from a vantage point far away put together by an artist with no engineering/architectural training based on the general vision of what the tower will look like. When you last opened a beer did the Swedish bikini team drop out of the sky? Rendering = advertising.

If the province stepped in to significantly alter the regulatory landscape to require zero material changes and altering sales & marketing timelines to extend to overall development process timelines, risk would increase significantly and some business practices (i.e. ordering windows 3 years in advance of construction and storing them somewhere to ensure supply is available) seem pretty far fetched as being practical. All those associated costs would be passed onto consumers. So while as a benefit we'd all have perfect renderings, we'd reduce the level of competition with fewer developers in Toronto being able to take on additional risks and have even higher condo prices reducing affordability.

It is too bad no one has any blue-prints or landscaping plans to see how much the actual plans changed. I doubt the budget changed significantly throughout the project. So I question how significantly the project scope was actually altered or if the artist drawing the rendering was just given far more free range than was necessary. Sometime less is more with these drawings. I’m assuming it was just a really badly put together rendering that was entirely mis-leading rather than the budget being chopped at the last second (Concord had to live up to specific commitments based on parkland dedication requirements and sec 37 agreements).