From the Star:
Waterfront renewal's slow drip
Plans are grand, but costs are staggering and much work is to be done before shovels can dig in
Sep 07, 2008 04:30 AM
Kenneth Kidd
Feature Writer
As John Campbell sits in his corner office overlooking Queens Quay, the numbers that spring to his lips are all impressively large, from the more than 800 hectares being redeveloped along Toronto's central waterfront to the thousands of jobs created, the condos yet to be built.
But none is more jaw-dropping than the one he throws out next – $30 billion, as in the likely cost of doing all this.
That's more than twice the $12 billion price tag that Robert Fung's task force came up with eight years ago, a mix of public and private sector spending. (Within two years, the estimate jumped to $17 billion.)
"We've had about 65 per cent inflation over the last five years in hard costs," says Campbell, president of Waterfront Toronto, the agency charged with overseeing it all. "Copper, labour, cement, steel – the costs of construction have gone up dramatically."
Nor will the total tab really be known until the whole redevelopment is complete, probably some 25 years from now. "It's really hard for people to grasp the enormous size of this project," says Campbell.
That scale, and the amount of time required, does little to allay the deep-seated public cynicism around such renewal projects – talked about in reports and task forces spanning decades with, until now, relatively little to show for it.
"It's frustrating for the public," agrees Campbell. "And we're as frustrated as anybody."
But it's largely the nature of the beast. In the real estate world, a typical construction project might take seven years, but the first four or five are consumed in planning, public consultations, environmental assessments, zoning changes and other regulatory hurdles.
"The public only thinks it starts when shovels hit the ground," says Campbell. "That's almost the end of the project, time-wise."
That pace is worth noting as other communities around the GTA embark on waterfront redevelopments that, while smaller in scale, are often at an even earlier stage.
In Oshawa, for instance, the city and Ottawa are still haggling about how much federal land in the harbour should even be turned over for local redevelopment.
And in Mississauga, a citizens' group came up with a waterfront plan that included a mixed-used community, efforts partly aimed at stopping Queen's Park from replacing the Lakeview coal-fired generating station with a gas one.
Success came this summer when the province announced it would not put a new generating station there. But the city must still figure out if it has enough money to buy a key parcel of land from Ontario Power Generation, and Queen's Park has already said it won't be making any cash contribution.
Until those issues are resolved, none of the official planning can be launched in earnest, from city oversight of the process to zoning issues and environmental assessments.
WHEN CAMPBELL arrived at Waterfront Toronto five years ago from the private sector, one of his first shocks came courtesy of environmental assessments.
He wanted to know how many would be required.
"The staff went away and came back a week later and said 391," recalls Campbell, whose first reaction was: "Oh my God, that's enough for an army of consultants for a century. I think we've boiled it down to around 65 now, but they are time-consuming."
Waterfront Toronto's funding formula also dictates a more measured pace than voters and taxpayers might think ideal. When it was created, Waterfront Toronto was promised $1.5 billion from all three levels of government, but that money flows over the better part of a decade, not upfront.
"In a sense, you want to grow fast," says Campbell. "But the economic model is such that, the governments have given us $1.5 billion in seed capital plus the land and we're to invest in land, roll it over, make a profit so we can reinvest. Under the model, you don't want to go and be too aggressive, (move) too quickly, because you deflate the land value."
So far, Waterfront Toronto has spent about $300 million, half of that in hard costs like construction, but a lot of this is early infrastructure, which largely goes unnoticed.
Consider what's been happening at the West Don Lands project, an area from Parliament St. to the Don River bounded by the Distillery District and rail corridor to the south, and to the north by Front St., Eastern Ave. and then King St. as you move closer to the Don.
Much of the area is brownfields – former industrial areas – but plans call for major housing developments and the extension of Front St., turning it into a grand boulevard leading to an 8-hectare Don River Park next to the water.
That part of the precinct is prone to flooding in extreme weather, so Waterfront Toronto is in the midst of building a berm close to the river.
But before this could be done, a rail bridge over the Don had to be lengthened. That's because the new berm would channel a wall of water downstream during an extreme flood, potentially washing out the shorter-spanned, existing rail bridge. The cost of extending the bridge, including land acquisition and enhancements to its pedestrian underpass: $19 million.
Then there's the $43 million being spent on everything from a massive new sewer main to demolishing old buildings and grading the West Don Lands site.
None of which exactly dances to the top of the public imagination when it comes to beautifying a derelict part of town.
JOHN CAMPBELL has parked his car on, yes, the south sidewalk of Queens Quay, so he and a visitor can hop out to look at the new "Wave Deck" at the Lower Spadina Slip. It's a multi-layered, undulating structure meant to extend the sidewalk out over the water – a boardwalk with a funhouse sensibility.
It will have its formal unveiling this month, the first of a handful of sidewalk additions planned along the waterfront. "Things are really starting to happen," says Campbell.
What isn't happening, or at least not yet, is an ambitious plan to convert half of Queens Quay itself into a kind of linear park. The street would be reduced from four lanes of traffic to two, with the southern half becoming a tree-lined promenade for pedestrians separated from the road by the streetcar line.
But the environmental assessment is still underway, and there is a host of unresolved complications. Part of the plan, for instance, involves extending the streetcar line east of Bay St. But where does the line rise to ground level from the current tunnel that runs from Union Station? In front of the Westin hotel? Past the Redpath sugar refinery?
"There are four different locations, all with very different costs," says Campbell.
Another wrinkle: If all the vehicle traffic is on the north side, then anyone travelling east and making a right-hand turn would have to cross the streetcar tracks. To accommodate this, the streetcar would have to have additional stops, slowing the line down.
With none of that formally resolved, timing remains problematic, though Campbell professes himself optimistic. "It should be phenomenal," he says. "This will become a landmark for the city."
It would also help alleviate another issue of public perception. Sections of the lakefront often seem like they belong to neighbouring condominiums, even though they're technically public.
Turning half of Queens Quay into a linear park – along with consistent signage and street furniture – would help make the area seem more public, which, for Campbell, can't happen soon enough.
Nor can a decision (finally) on what to do with the Gardiner.
Campbell still dreams of tearing down the expressway, which many see as a barrier to the waterfront.
Whether the city has either the political will or the fiscal fortitude to deal with the Gardiner once and for all remains an open question.
"Incrementalism seems to be easier to do and that makes it politically easier to do," says Campbell.
"What we're suggesting for the waterfront is a big, bold move. It would be quite a change, quite a change."
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/492229
AoD
