[AlvinofDiaspar]

WaterfrontTO is about to run out of their initial seed funding. It's been a massive success attracting billions in private investment. They're campaigning to get another injection that'll help them complete the rest of the work. John Tory doesn't seem particularly enthused about the waterfront so I'm feeling pessimistic. He's surprised us before with out of the blue support for items he had never opined on so maybe we'll be ok.

If the second round of funding comes, HTO park north will be on it. I'd personally like to see a pool and splash pads there. All these urban beaches are teasing us without any payoff. People want to get their toes wet!

I think the org is looking at the ability to take on debt, using land holdings as leverage. I have a feeling the politicos won't like that, least of which is they can't make grand proclamations about how they've funded this or that.

AoD

 

[MetroMan]

I'm just afraid Tory is going to come out on June 19th and declare: "Hey look, we finished the waterfront, enjoy!" and then forget about Queens Quay East and the Portlands. Funding for the waterfront? I don't think so when he has to find money to pay to keep the Gardiner up and for his back of the napkin transit plans.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I'm just afraid Tory is going to come out on June 19th and declare: "Hey look, we finished the waterfront, enjoy!" and then forget about Queens Quay East and the Portlands. Funding for the waterfront? I don't think so when he has to find money to pay to keep the Gardiner up and for his back of the napkin transit plans.

He will be in for a rude surprise given the strength of the waterfront support - he should recall how his fraudship's Portland plans were torpedoed through public outcry. Besides, his/his buddies' Don Roadway plans require floodproofing - and that's very much in WT's area, part and parcel of the Lower Don scheme.

AoD

 

[k10ery]

He will be in for a rude surprise given the strength of the waterfront support - he should recall how his fraudship's Portland plans were torpedoed through public outcry. Besides, his/his buddies' Don Roadway plans require floodproofing - and that's very much in WT's area, part and parcel of the Lower Don scheme.

AoD

It strikes me that tearing down the Gardiner sets back the Lower Don development plans another ten years, because develop able land in the Portlands won't be worth much if there's a dozen condo buildings going up at the foot of Jarvis and Parliament. I'm sure First Gulf is worried about that. But we as a city should be too. There's a lot more public greenspace on offer in the LDL plan, and it won't get built until developers are willing to. Invest down there, and until money for floodproofing is found. Another huge argument for keeping the Gardiner in my view.

Yes this is off topic sorry

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

It strikes me that tearing down the Gardiner sets back the Lower Don development plans another ten years, because develop able land in the Portlands won't be worth much if there's a dozen condo buildings going up at the foot of Jarvis and Parliament. I'm sure First Gulf is worried about that. But we as a city should be too. There's a lot more public greenspace on offer in the LDL plan, and it won't get built until developers are willing to. Invest down there, and until money for floodproofing is found. Another huge argument for keeping the Gardiner in my view.

Yes this is off topic sorry

Huh? having condo buildings proximate to one's site is a bonus, not drawback to development - there is a reason why you are seeing residential intensification in the area around the First Gulf site in Riverdale.

And there isn't all that much extra public greenspace in the hybrid scenario - they are ramp spaces, which is next to useless from a public perspective.

AoD

 

[Allandale25]

I was walking a long Queen's Quay yesterday and noticed that a number of the new tress they planted seem to have died. Is there a plan to replace them? Doesn't look very good right before the Pan Am Games.

 

[k10ery]

Huh? having condo buildings proximate to one's site is a bonus, not drawback to development - there is a reason why you are seeing residential intensification in the area around the First Gulf site in Riverdale.
AoD

Supply and demand, right?

And there isn't all that much extra public greenspace in the hybrid scenario - they are ramp spaces, which is next to useless from a public perspective.

No I meant the public space of the Don mouth naturalization. Anything that delays that is costly, in my view.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Supply and demand, right

Considering the amount of space that makes up the Portlands (okay, let's be fair, EBF and Villers Precinct), plus redevelopable space along LLE, supply and demand in that context is relatively moot.

No I meant the public space of the Don mouth naturalization. Anything that delays that is costly, in my view.

Tearing down the stretch of Gardiner in question has almost nothing to do with Don Mouth naturalization. If you want to argue about it from a supply and demand perspective, you should delay the latter so as to restrict supply of two complete precinct - not a teeny bit of land between Keating and the rail yard that would be liberated by tearing down the Gardiner. But of course, delaying naturalization in the name of restricting supply and demand would certainly be a funny way of prioritizing green space.

AoD

 

[k10ery]

Considering the amount of space that makes up the Portlands (okay, let's be fair, EBF and Villers Precinct), plus redevelopable space along LLE, supply and demand in that context is relatively moot.



Tearing down the stretch of Gardiner in question has almost nothing to do with Don Mouth naturalization. If you want to argue about it from a supply and demand perspective, you should delay the latter so as to restrict supply of two complete precinct - not a teeny bit of land between Keating and the rail yard that would be liberated by tearing down the Gardiner. But of course, delaying naturalization in the name of restricting supply and demand would certainly be a funny way of prioritizing green space.

AoD

I wasn't clear. I'm just saying, if we tell developers that they have a few hundred more acres to develop between Jarvis and Cherry south of the rail lands, then that's what they'll do first. If we keep that land undevelopable due to the Gardiner, they'll have more incentive to leap over it and start developing the Portlands. That in turn will spur the naturalization project.

It's a speculative argument, I admit.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wasn't clear. I'm just saying, if we tell developers that they have a few hundred more acres to develop between Jarvis and Cherry south of the rail lands, then that's what they'll do first. If we keep that land undevelopable due to the Gardiner, they'll have more incentive to leap over it and start developing the Portlands. That in turn will spur the naturalization project.

It's a speculative argument, I admit.

The delta in redevelopable land between the hybrid and remove option isn't THAT large relative to what the naturalization project is what will unlock. And to argue that we should use the Gardiner to "lock in" redevelopable opportunities is kind of stretching it, when we all know that's not the premise to start off with.

AoD

 

[k10ery]

The delta in redevelopable land between the hybrid and remove option isn't THAT large relative to what the naturalization project is what will unlock. And to argue that we should use the Gardiner to "lock in" redevelopable opportunities is kind of stretching it, when we all know that's not the premise to start off with.

AoD

And yet the delta of land is one of the main arguments for tearing down the highway, despite the greater capital costs of this alternative.

My point is sort of parallels the argument that greenbelts cause more sprawl as developers jump over the greenbelt to get cheap land. Of course there is a lot more land outside the greenbelt than in the greenbelt itself, so the main effect is not on the price of all land (or on total development activity), but just on what's happening right at the boundary.

In this case, the Gardiner is the "greenbelt": the undevelopable reserve on the margin of our city. If we keep it undevelopable, then development moves to the Portlands that much sooner.

 

[ttk77]

And yet the delta of land is one of the main arguments for tearing down the highway, despite the greater capital costs of this alternative.

Why do you keep stating this? Did the "maintain" option somehow get added back to the agenda? Of the only two options going before council that I'm aware of, "hybrid" and "removal", removal has the lower capital cost AND the lower maintenance cost.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

And yet the delta of land is one of the main arguments for tearing down the highway, despite the greater capital costs of this alternative.

Are you conflating public financing of highway maintenance, paid for by the public with the far higher values of the combined private development, and the public gain from selling that land?

My point is sort of parallels the argument that greenbelts cause more sprawl as developers jump over the greenbelt to get cheap land. Of course there is a lot more land outside the greenbelt than in the greenbelt itself, so the main effect is not on the price of all land (or on total development activity), but just on what's happening right at the boundary.

In this case, the Gardiner is the "greenbelt": the undevelopable reserve on the margin of our city. If we keep it undevelopable, then development moves to the Portlands that much sooner.

That strip of land isn't going to make or break or change the schedule of redeveloping the Portlands. On the other hand, tearing down the Gardiner may prove to be catalytic as a planning move for the area. To argue that somehow keeping the highway will hasten Portland developoment is perverse (and if I were you, I'd focus on the public financing of the enabling floodworks instead - funds that could have been diverting from keeping the Gardiner up at a greater cost, and that the Portlands won't be going anywhere without this public funding)

AoD

 

[k10ery]

That strip of land isn't going to make or break or change the schedule of redeveloping the Portlands. On the other hand, tearing down the Gardiner may prove to be catalytic as a planning move for the area. To argue that somehow keeping the highway will hasten Portland developoment is perverse (and if I were you, I'd focus on the public financing of the enabling floodworks instead - funds that could have been diverting from keeping the Gardiner up at a greater cost, and that the Portlands won't be going anywhere without this public funding)

AoD

For sure, you have grounds to be skeptical of my argument.

In return I would say (as I have several times in the Gardiner thread): do not worry about the estimated cost differences of the different options. They are of such small magnitude they should not affect your thinking.

But to recap: in terms of capital cost, maintain is cheapest. Even incorporating O&M costs over 100 years and counting the capital costs of partial teardown, the hybrid option is only expected to be a little more. I mean really: a $100 million even with extreme assumptions to torque in favour of tear down. That's nothing. The expansion of night bus service announced this week will cost way more than that! Pretty much everything will.

Let's just stop worrying about the money. It's a red herring.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

But to recap: in terms of capital cost, maintain is cheapest. Even incorporating O&M costs over 100 years and counting the capital costs of partial teardown, the hybrid option is only expected to be a little more. I mean really: a $100 million even with extreme assumptions to torque in favour of tear down. That's nothing. The expansion of night bus service announced this week will cost way more than that! Pretty much everything will.

Dude, stop. Maintain is NOT on the table. That much has already been agreed upon by all parties. The debate will be about 'Boulevard (aka Remove)' or 'Elevated (aka Hybrid)'. You lose serious credibility every time you say this, as it's flat-out wrong, and you know it is.