At the latest Mouth of the Creek Park public consultation earlier this evening, Adam Vaughan stated that his office is exploring having some Section 37 money from the next CityPlace zoning amendment applications pay for the construction of stairs at the landing of the bridge to make access easier from the east.

42

This just makes me laugh.
 

It seems a little absurd that it wasn't designed with stairs in the first place, and that rather than the developer charged with building it paying for these stairs, the community is forced to scrounge up s. 37 money from other developers.
 
But there's the rub. The developer was not charged with building stairs. They had to construct an accessible bridge using the specific amount of money specified in the S.37 clause of their rezoning agreement. The ramps ensure that the bridge meets the building code and AODA's minimum accessibility standards - something which stairs wouldn't have. Unless they're feeling benevolent and charitable, Concord Adex is under no obligation to pay for anything more.
 
It seems a little absurd that it wasn't designed with stairs in the first place, and that rather than the developer charged with building it paying for these stairs, the community is forced to scrounge up s. 37 money from other developers.

It almost assuredly was, they just weren't constructed in the first phase (remember, they only had to meet minimum accessibility standards, not make things convenient).
 
Saw this tonight when out walking the dog - art or just trash?

6eq5b9.jpg


lighting is photoshopped
 
But there's the rub. The developer was not charged with building stairs. They had to construct an accessible bridge using the specific amount of money specified in the S.37 clause of their rezoning agreement. The ramps ensure that the bridge meets the building code and AODA's minimum accessibility standards - something which stairs wouldn't have. Unless they're feeling benevolent and charitable, Concord Adex is under no obligation to pay for anything more.

Than the absurdity is on the part of the city for not demanding something slightly better than meeting minimum standards from the outset. I'm not really interesting in assigning blame, but the situation does indeed seem laughable.
 
I use the bridge every day as part of my commute. Lack of stairs was annoying at first, but the truth is it's not too bad without.
 
Than the absurdity is on the part of the city for not demanding something slightly better than meeting minimum standards from the outset. I'm not really interesting in assigning blame, but the situation does indeed seem laughable.

Not that I don't agree with you in principle, but how do you make that sort of 'demand' legally binding? Recall what happened at 365 Church - the community demanded 'more' but when pressed, was unable to quantify exactly 'how much,' or qualify 'why.' This lack of a hard number and evidence to back it up caused the community to lose everything.

As I'm sure you know, Sec. 37 funds are an exact amount which is dictated by a formula. The bridge cost is also an exact amount dictated by the design, engineering and construction fees. If one doesn't cover the other, the city does not have the ability to 'demand' that the developer pay more - and nor should they. To me it's much less 'absurd' than 'fair.'
 
Essentially the bridge already cost quite a bit more to build than Concord was required through S. 37 agreements to pay. When the agreements are worked out, the amounts developers have to spend are set. Concord went beyond that to make sure there was a good, workable bridge. I can't fault them on not going even further beyond budget to add stairs that were never required. I'm happy that those stairs will likely be added a couple of years from now based on agreements that are currently being worked out.

42
 
Essentially the bridge already cost quite a bit more to build than Concord was required through S. 37 agreements to pay. When the agreements are worked out, the amounts developers have to spend are set. Concord went beyond that to make sure there was a good, workable bridge. I can't fault them on not going even further beyond budget to add stairs that were never required. I'm happy that those stairs will likely be added a couple of years from now based on agreements that are currently being worked out.

42

Come on. I fault them. Really, how much more could one set of stairs cost? $10,000? $20,000 max? from a developer making millions upon millions? It's practically a rounding error.
 
$30,000 would get you stairs on both sides of the bridge similar to the steps at the Spadina Bridge in Cityplace
 
At the latest Mouth of the Creek Park public consultation earlier this evening, Adam Vaughan stated that his office is exploring having some Section 37 money from the next CityPlace zoning amendment applications pay for the construction of stairs at the landing of the bridge to make access easier from the east.

42

Stairs from the end of the ramp to the new park, or something else?
 
Come on. I fault them. Really, how much more could one set of stairs cost? $10,000? $20,000 max? from a developer making millions upon millions? It's practically a rounding error.

I'll reiterate. How do you write that into law? "If this thing costs more than we project, the City reserves the right to demand more." ? City building doesn't work that way. Things like Sec.37 are precise and legally binding.
 

Back
Top