[Natika33]

The renderings look great? Lol. No they don’t. The previous plan of the beach part was so much better. That’s regressed terribly. It’s all dull grey pavement & pathways overwhelming everything. Previous plan of different coloured pavers & slabs on pathways was actually nice.
More earthy. Where’d that go? Cheap decision. The best part of prev. design was the beach. For the most part, those awful glass structures are gone. More wood & green foliage might be an improvement but nothing stands out. Looks chaotic & messy imo.. And I ‘m not crazy about the original OP structures still there (Maybe the sphere can stay)- it just doesn’t mesh well. The new plan is like the C version. Not impressive. It doesn’t matter, Therme & Ford will not get that thing built.

☝I see a larger gathering space at the point, but where has the beach part changed?

 

[Skyhighzz]

View attachment 501828☝I see a larger gathering space at the point, but where has the beach part changed?

It looks different to me from what I can recall. Some earlier design pics aren’t all here or I can’t find them. Different angles of design maybe? Not quite sure what’s separate from Therme space & other parks & spaces connecting? I just don’t remember or like the all grey pavement.

 

[Dinamo5]

Not going to please everyone that is for sure, I like it, its not perfect but considering what has been sitting there for so long unused and ugly. Start construction tomorrow, it has been far to long. Build more islands if more parkland is needed, those trucks taking soil away from downtown construction projects should be redirected to making a new island.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...I am open to giving Therme it's own island/pod here. Leaving the rest of the OP to public usage.

And yeah...Therme can pony up for all of this if they're so desperate in making this happen.

 

[Natika33]

...I am open to giving Therme it's own island/pod here. Leaving the rest of the OP to public usage.

And yeah...Therme can pony up for all of this if they're so desperate in making this happen.

I'm not sure I understand this comment. The gov't contracted Therme to redevelop this land. Therme is therefore attempting to fulfill their contract. Where are they showing they are "so desperate"?

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I'm not sure I understand this comment. The gov't contracted Therme to redevelop this land. Therme is therefore attempting to fulfill their contract. Where are they showing they are "so desperate"?

That's alright. I'm not sure I understand your comment either. /shrug

 

[picard102]

...I am open to giving Therme it's own island/pod here. Leaving the rest of the OP to public usage.

Which part isn't "publicly accessible" like Ontario Place has been for decades?

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Which part isn't "publicly accessible" like Ontario Place has been for decades?

...and that question sure seems to come with the gaslight dialed up on high. Do I need to really answer that?

 

[JohnnyRaylander]

Ontario is ponying up $400M a sweetheart lease of absolutely prime real estate in a massive growing city. It boggles my mind that some people think that this is the best we can get for that. Or even an adequate return on that investment.
Either people lack imagination or cynicism has worn their optimism down to a nub.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Ontario is ponying up $400M a sweetheart lease of absolutely prime real estate in a massive growing city. It boggles my mind that some people think that this is the best we can get for that. Or even an adequate return on that investment.
Either people lack imagination or cynicism has worn their optimism down to a nub.

People don't realize that the parking garage may have a $400 million capital cost (even then, that's a guesstimate - I suspect it'll come in well below that number given the scale of the facility saving money per sf) - but it is also revenue generating. It's not a $400 million giveaway. That garage will be full of thousands of cars a day paying $20 to park there.

Will that be enough to offset all of the capital cost? Maybe not. Certainly it'll offset much of it - statements the government has made make it sound like they believe it'll pay for itself. It's absolutely not, unequivocally, in any way, a $400 million giveaway.

 

[Ward8]

People don't realize that the parking garage may have a $400 million capital cost (even then, that's a guesstimate - I suspect it'll come in well below that number given the scale of the facility saving money per sf) - but it is also revenue generating. It's not a $400 million giveaway. That garage will be full of thousands of cars a day paying $20 to park there.

Will that be enough to offset all of the capital cost? Maybe not. Certainly it'll offset much of it - statements the government has made make it sound like they believe it'll pay for itself. It's absolutely not, unequivocally, in any way, a $400 million giveaway.

I don't agree with the last part. The objection, at least for me, is that the parking garage is in many ways a subsidy for Therme. There is no shortage of parking around. The point of the garage would be to service the spa. Shouldn't the people building the spa take on the risk of that investment?

Litterally any nimby could use that argument.
status quo of not building a 25 storey condo: no construction noise, no traffic impacts, no new people moving into the neighborhood

Opposition to this project is not NIMBYism, full stop.

First off. The closest house or apartment is a km away. No one is saying "don't build this because it will affect my property in some way that I don't like" There is opposition to this because it is a waste of public resources.

When a NIMBY opposes housing, they prevent other people from having a home, they drive up the cost of living in a city, and they exert unfair influence over the development of another persons private property. This site is not private property and the building doesn't provide any homes or essential services. Nothing bad happens if it doesn't get built.

It is perfectly reasonable for the public to oppose the permanent use of public space for private profits. It is completely inappropriate to compare this to NIMBYism. The public has every right to say no to this. This is the equivalent of the city leasing Christie Pits to Cineplex for a giant multiplex theatre. In no way is it relatable to a 25 story building anywhere.

If they absolutely insist on putting a spa at Ontario Place why not build it on the hectares of available asphalt? This proposal boggles the mind with how unnecessarily destructive it is.

 

[pw20]

People don't realize that the parking garage may have a $400 million capital cost (even then, that's a guesstimate - I suspect it'll come in well below that number given the scale of the facility saving money per sf) - but it is also revenue generating. It's not a $400 million giveaway. That garage will be full of thousands of cars a day paying $20 to park there.

Will that be enough to offset all of the capital cost? Maybe not. Certainly it'll offset much of it - statements the government has made make it sound like they believe it'll pay for itself. It's absolutely not, unequivocally, in any way, a $400 million giveaway.

2,000 spots at 100% occupancy at $20 a day for 365 days a year generates $15M a year of gross revenue, which does not account for any sort of maintenance of the lot or real-estate taxes. So I would argue that a $400M parking garage is a huge capital cost and subsidy. That's a 27 year pay back (and I'm not even doing any sort of discount cash-flow analysis which would make the payback even longer, and I'm not even considering the fact that the parking lot won't have 100% occupancy). This is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money to subsidize a really wasteful endeavor (a private spa). Every single Torontonian should be up in arms over this.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I don't agree with the last part. The objection, at least for me, is that the parking garage is in many ways a subsidy for Therme. There is no shortage of parking around. The point of the garage would be to service the spa. Shouldn't the people building the spa take on the risk of that investment?



Opposition to this project is not NIMBYism, full stop.

First off. The closest house or apartment is a km away. No one is saying "don't build this because it will affect my property in some way that I don't like" There is opposition to this because it is a waste of public resources.

When a NIMBY opposes housing, they prevent other people from having a home, they drive up the cost of living in a city, and they exert unfair influence over the development of another persons private property. This site is not private property and the building doesn't provide any homes or essential services. Nothing bad happens if it doesn't get built.

It is perfectly reasonable for the public to oppose the permanent use of public space for private profits. It is completely inappropriate to compare this to NIMBYism. The public has every right to say no to this. This is the equivalent of the city leasing Christie Pits to Cineplex for a giant multiplex theatre. In no way is it relatable to a 25 story building anywhere.

If they absolutely insist on putting a spa at Ontario Place why not build it on the hectares of available asphalt? This proposal boggles the mind with how unnecessarily destructive it is.

Unless the rowboats/boats/yachts/ships at the marina are lived in year-long. Then it might be a "NIMBY" cause.

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

2,000 spots at 100% occupancy at $20 a day for 365 days a year generates $15M a year of gross revenue, which does not account for any sort of maintenance of the lot or real-estate taxes. So I would argue that a $400M parking garage is a huge capital cost and subsidy. That's a 27 year pay back (and I'm not even doing any sort of discount cash-flow analysis which would make the payback even longer, and I'm not even considering the fact that the parking lot won't have 100% occupancy). This is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money to subsidize a really wasteful endeavor (a private spa). Every single Torontonian should be up in arms over this.

*Ontarian

 

[innsertnamehere]

2,000 spots at 100% occupancy at $20 a day for 365 days a year generates $15M a year of gross revenue, which does not account for any sort of maintenance of the lot or real-estate taxes. So I would argue that a $400M parking garage is a huge capital cost and subsidy. That's a 27 year pay back (and I'm not even doing any sort of discount cash-flow analysis which would make the payback even longer, and I'm not even considering the fact that the parking lot won't have 100% occupancy). This is a HUGE waste of taxpayer money to subsidize a really wasteful endeavor (a private spa). Every single Torontonian should be up in arms over this.

That's again assuming a $400 million cost - which is $200,000 a space. That's far and above my understanding of what a typical parking space costs.

Looking at the plans for the garage, there is about 967,000sf of space below grade for the parking garage once you exclude the below-grade spaces for the Science Centre.. which means at $195/sf as per the Altus cost guide for below grade parking.. that's $190 million in capital costs for the garage component of the project. That's about $90k a space - still high from my understanding, but closer to realistic. And much closer to being able to be financed on parking revenues.


Again - I'm not claiming that the parking is going completely unsubsidized here, just that it's not a $400 million subsidy. The reality is that we don't know the numbers.

As for why the province is building it and not Therme.. Therme is not the only tenant at Ontario Place that will be using the garage. Parking users will be using it to go to Live Nation, to the park spaces, to the Science Centre, to the Ex, to BMO Field, to etc.. It's very much a multi-use facility which will be used to service a wide variety of uses. It makes sense for the province, and not Therme, to build it, provided there are appropriate kick-backs in the lease to ensure that the province isn't left holding the bag.

And ultimately, not being privy to the lease agreement or the province's budgeting, we have no idea what the level of subsidy, if any, is occurring here. Certainly not a $400 million subsidy for the parking garage alone.

The storey here is to be more transparent on costs. A whole lot of real ugly, misleading numbers are being thrown around here and in the media because the province refuses to release even high level details on the financial terms of the deal.