Sorry for the 'melodrama' but what is it with these forced dichotomies? Are the only options for us the bureacratic mire of Toronto development on the one hand or Dubai on the other? How is this constructive?
Click to expand...

Well, since you seem to be so dismissive of legal and due process issues, I think it is more than appropriate to raise the dichotomies.

My point is that as lay people the public isn't necessarily composed of expertly informed individuals who understand every aspect of government planning and development or the ins and outs of every urban issue or project. We do rely just a little on the fact that the people we pay and elect to do these jobs will do them efficiently and still manage to avoid 'half-baked' jobs. Your persistance in dismissing me or the general public or our opinions as 'meldodramatic' and 'ignorant' does not alleviate our impression that six years is simply too long for this. We may not all be experts but some of us do know enough about this project and its history to reject such an argument as defensive posturing.
Click to expand...

For every citizen like you, there is another with different priorities - the job of the government is to take a course that accounts for these differences (or so one hopes). The issue isn't whether it is taking 3 or 6 years per se - it is whether the citizens have an understanding of what changing the system - in this case, EAs - entails in spite of their differing interests, and what is required to get that change in legislation/regulations into the agenda from a citizen's perspective. The government can't just snap their fingers and change the laws/regs the next day even if it is the right thing to do for all but the most special of circumstances - and WT has to operate within the boundaries of the law - no ifs, not buts about that one. At the end of the day, are you prepared to translate your views on the issue into action of some sort - and do you even know what needs to be done? If not, then whining really doesn't do anything.

I'm sorry AoD but none of the above convinces me. It just sounds like more defensive excuses to justify government waste and inertia:

1) A million dollar 'pr' event to convince people that a nicely landscaped Queen's Quay will be a benefit? Good Lord, how much planning and time did that consume?

2) Four to Five years for an ea and paperwork? What are these people doing? They're certainly not spending a lot of time maintaining the parks, pavement and roads and public spaces

3) I will admit that some prior planning obviously went into the Vancouver Olympics, but a little outside benchmarking does give us 'some' perspective in the face of being dismissed as whining and 'ignorant' by Toronto civil servants. Six years to complete Queen's Quay (I'm sure planning of this began before 2006 too for that matter) vs the realizing of the Olympics Games?
Click to expand...

1) The winner of the proposal was announced in mid-May 2006; the Quay to the City (the experiment) occured in mid-August 2006. And guess what a lot of the cost has to do with? Traffic police presence - another legal/regulatory requirement.

2) About 2 years for an legally required EA for the transit portion, which started in September 2007 - consisting of a multistage analysis of alternatives and a series of public consultations.

3) What portion of Olympics are we talking about? Confounding building projects with transportation infrastructure (which has a different set of regulatory requirements) is not helpful at all for benchmarking purposes. And no, planning of Queen's Quay did not begin before 2006 - considering the configuration was the outcome of a design competition, which I have already dated in Point 1.

AoD

PS: And just so you know, the regulations around EAs for transit had been changed out of the concerns you've expressed (incidentally, it's more of an endogenous policy change) - but that happened in mid-2008 - at which time the process for this project is already underway (and I don't believe the change in regulations are retroactive). Funnily enough, you will hear to no end from people who think that under this model, projects are being "rammed through" (e.g. Transit City). Guess what, damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Anyways, regardless of our philosophical differences in how things should be done - I think we can both agree on the fact that things are happening. If anything, we should work to make sure that it remains a political priority and not given up halfway - which is something that happens often.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely AoD, in fact I think that is the reason for my 'frustration'. These changes are and will be so good that we want them faster:)
 
TKTKTK said:
That Loblaws parking lot floods all the time - it's brutal. That photo looks worse than I've ever seen it in person, but it DOES happen every time it rains heavily.

It's something specific to that stupid lot, no other parking lot looks like that in the rain. Also...that's a SURFACE lot (Loblaws is built over it as a second story) - its flooding has nothing to do with underground parking.
Click to expand...
It's quite possible that it was designed that way. Catch basins in parking lots are often designed to limit how much water can flow through them. So stormwater is retained in the parking lot during heavy rain to reduce flooding problems downstream. It's the same principle as a stormwater retention pond.
 
MisterF said:
It's quite possible that it was designed that way. Catch basins in parking lots are often designed to limit how much water can flow through them. So stormwater is retained in the parking lot during heavy rain to reduce flooding problems downstream. It's the same principle as a stormwater retention pond.
Click to expand...

yeeeeeah, but downstream is the lake? Like 50 feet away?
 
TKTKTK said:
yeeeeeah, but downstream is the lake? Like 50 feet away?
Click to expand...
I can't say for sure but they might be controlling stormwater flows into the lake. Large storm drains that dump heavy flows directly into waterways tend to do a lot of damage. They're largely avoided in modern drainage systems.
 
Storm drains have finite capacity - if that is used up by flow upstream, there might not be room for additional input even if it is closer to the shore, hence flooding.

AoD
 
Part of the work which will be done on Queen's Quay as part of the East Bayfront project is to improve the 'municipal infrastructure". This includes the storm (and sanitary) sewers so I expect that once this is done (it's supposed to occur in 2009 and they are already working on the hydro upgrading) I bet the Loblaws parking lot will remain dry.
 
From WT:

Transformation of Queens Quay Into World Class Waterfront Street Set To Begin

April 19, 2010

Ontario’s Minister of the Environment, John Gerretsen, has cleared the way for the revitalization of Queens Quay Boulevard to proceed. This formally concludes the planning and approval process for the Queens Quay Revitalization Environmental Assessment undertaken by Waterfront Toronto and the City of Toronto.

Waterfront Toronto may now proceed with the transformation of Queens Quay from an uninviting traffic corridor into a beautiful, world-class street that links major destinations along the water’s edge, creates pedestrian and cycling-friendly promenades and encourages an economically vibrant area for locals and visitors alike.

When complete, the revitalization of Queens Quay will see two lanes of traffic on the south side of the street replaced with a linear park. The park will feature a generous tree-lined granite pedestrian promenade as well as a continuous, off-street Martin Goodman Trail. A dedicated Light Rail Transit (LRT) line will run along the centre of the street with two lanes of east-west traffic north of the tracks. Landscaping and other improvements to the public space on the north side of the street will provide the kind of atmosphere conducive to economic vitality, ground floor retail activity and urban vibrancy.

“After more than two years of detailed planning, study and consultation, we now have the green light to turn the vision for Queens Quay into reality,” said John Campbell, President and CEO of Waterfront Toronto. “It’s time to act upon what we’ve heard from countless residents, businesses, civic leaders and the general public — that Queens Quay must live up to its remarkable potential.”

Construction of the approximately three kilometre stretch of Queens Quay Boulevard will rollout in phases as funding permits. The first phase of work, which is funded in Waterfront Toronto’s long term plan, includes schematic design from Spadina Ave. to Parliament St. and the construction of an 800-metre section of the street.

During schematic design which is now underway, a comprehensive layout of the street from end to end including traffic management and construction phasing strategies will be produced. The location of the first phase of construction will also be determined. Schematic design is expected to take about three months to complete and will be followed by detailed design for the first 800 metre section of the street.

Construction of the first 800 metre stretch of Queens Quay is expected to begin early next year and will take about 18 months to build. Phase one is budgeted at approximately $48 million.

Once schematic design is in place for the entire corridor, future phases of construction will move quickly as additional funding is secured.

As we move from planning into implementation, public consultation will continue to be an integral part of the project with opportunities for the public to be actively engaged in the process. Waterfront Toronto is currently working with key stakeholders to develop a public engagement strategy that will document appropriate opportunities to share information and seek public input throughout the process.

The Government of Canada, the Province of Ontario and the City of Toronto created Waterfront Toronto to oversee and lead the renewal of Toronto’s waterfront. Public accessibility, design excellence, sustainable development, economic development and fiscal sustainability are the key drivers of waterfront revitalization.

-30-

Media contact:
Samantha Gileno, Waterfront Toronto, 416-271-1316

http://news.waterfrontoronto.ca/201...o-world-class-waterfront-street-set-to-begin/

AoD
 
Once funding is secured? Did they already go through the $1.5B that was committed by the three levels of government? In combination with the committed amounts, with the sale of lands to developers and Corus starting to pay rent shouldn't there be money already?
 
So we're looking at another 2.5+ years to get the first 800 meters of Queen's Quay complete?? A snail could do that trip in half the time.
 
cassius said:
So we're looking at another 2.5+ years to get the first 800 meters of Queen's Quay complete?? A snail could do that trip in half the time.
Click to expand...

They got to rebuild the portal to allow the streetcars to go east-west as well having the cars from east to get to Union Station. Then the loop at Union has to be upgraded also.

Got to rebuild the north side first so traffic can be put there 100%. Requires new traffic lights for the north side.

Not a simple job like you think it going to be.
 
The article says 1.5 years for the first 800 metres, and it does not state which stretch will be built. Between Spadina and Parliament it is approx. 2.8 km, 1.2 between Spadina and the existing portal. My speculation is that the first 800 metres is from Spadina to Rees, which is about 750 metres. I say this because of the cost and timing to rejig the portal and Union Station loop. $48 mil. and 1.5 years does not seem like nearly enough money and time to complete job
 
marcus_a_j, you're right. They're going to start at Spadina to Rees. It's in previous newsletters.
 
Uhh... Spadina to Rees is only a bit more than 400metres... 800 metres puts you slightly past Simcoe. It's 1km from Spadina to York.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top