hbf92
New Member
Why do the parks have to open before work on the development parcels begins? Don't really understand why there's a delay to bring these sites to market, etc.
Why do the parks have to open before work on the development parcels begins? Don't really understand why there's a delay to bring these sites to market, etc.
Didn't mean start building residential uses, just that it seems like there will be a considerable lag between the completion of the PLFP and the island to become developable or marketable. Wouldn't some of those transactions support investments required to build the streetcar?That's not how the timing is working.
You can't develop anything until the flood protection is complete. The project won't be considered complete until the plugs have been removed and the debris management area is in operation.
If you moved faster, there's a risk anything you build would be flooded, and it would not be insurable for that.
***
Additionally, construction crews need road access, so only streets fronting an open road could be considered for initial development.
***
Finally, keep in mind, WT are not sitting back doing nothing, they're pushing Quayside forward.
Didn't mean start building residential uses, just that it seems like there will be a considerable lag between the completion of the PLFP and the island to become developable or marketable. Wouldn't some of those transactions support investments required to build the streetcar?
The revised Precinct Plan is only now making its way through Council (still think it's a wasted opportunity but at least rezoning for greater densities down the line as the market dictates will solve for that) and the Public Realm and Infrastructure Design Study process is only beginning Q4 of this year. I understand outside of Cherry and Commissioners, roads and servicing are outside of the PLFP scope. Not pinning the blame here on WT... just on Council once again lacking political will to advance things in a timely fashion.
Am I understanding correctly that the big disconnect here is that Alex B. is calculating FSI based on all land subtracting the river valley lands, while NL is calculating the FSI based on the developable blocks (ie subtracting river valley land and streets)?
I won't speak for Alex.
I'm taking my numbers directly from WT as posted on the previous page. Yes, those are for the developable blocks.
Including the adjacent streets would be like telling Concord (at Sky) they could water down their FSI by including the land area of Yonge Street and Gerrard, which doesn't make any sense to me. Just as a development on Broadview next to the Don Valley, doesn't get to factor in all of the valley they can't build on.
We have to calculate FSI or Density the same way every time or any comparison is meaningless.