[.dwg]

The whole Sidewalk Labs vision was naive enough back when it was presumed (advertised?) that Google capital investment would make it possible. It's a testing ground and therefore would require heavy investment from them to make it possible... but now they want the public sector and taxpayer money to essentially subsidize their project?

There's some generally great ideas (timber, new types of mixed-use, the concept of the stoa, new types of blocks that aren't based on car traffic) mixed in with some bad ones in this project. But the good ideas will never matter because they are their own worst enemies. Terrible PR, and it's because they sell their vision the wrong way over and over again. At this point I think they've realized the naivety of their vision (underground f%cking mail delivery robots in tunnels) and that it doesn't stand a chance of working (economies of scale) it requires on the original plot of land they were working with. So now they are trying to expand their mandate, and get taxpayers to help subsidize it. Honestly, there are good ideas in it - but there are so many bells and whistles that are a slap in the face when you realize the laundry list of more pressing issues we have (affordability being one) that already have solutions... the only thing holding it back is lack of willingness to pay for it and outdated policy.

If Google thinks Torontonians are going to allow them to offload risk onto public coffers, they are even more naive than I thought they were when they proposed rain-jackets for buildings.

 

[steveintoronto]

 

[steveintoronto]

Ya know, I'm not surprised in the least with this turn of events. I was one of the few crying "foul' on this from the start, much to the chagrin of the mods and management, and the compliant sheeple.

The FT, NYTimes, Economist and other reputable media have been warning on exactly this for the last two years. Financial Times had a series on it by one of their editors, Rana Foroohar.

I could go on, but what I can say in Sidewalk's defence is that the Waterfront Toronto plans for the Port Lands are almost as surreal and outlandish. Remediate the flow of the Don River? Absolutely, it's just plain engineering and safety good sense.

Those pics of Huckleberry Finn and and all the magic muppets happily holding pockets full of poses skipping amidst the endless woodland oases of the Land of Opulent High Rise Dreams that's to be the "New Port Lands"?

Hello, wake up! Everyone wants a piece. And they're not your friends! It's a developer's paradise, remediated with YOUR money...

Non-subscription Financial Times podcast:

Listen: Rana Foroohar — The untrammelled power of Big Tech

Why we are seeing a 'techlash' — the pushback against Facebook, Apple and Google. Featuring Prof Frank Pasquale of University of Maryland and Roger McNamee of venture capital firm Elevation Partners. With Richard Waters and Martin Sandbu of the FT

www.ft.com

See also (non-subscription)

Waterfront Toronto CEO departs

ftalphaville.ft.com

 

[ChesterCopperpot]

More renders here - looks like they were working with Snohetta and Heatherwick Studio out of London

From here - https://medium.com/sidewalk-toronto/sidewalk-toronto-project-update-d44738cdb239

 

[raptor]

Ya know, I'm not surprised in the least with this turn of events. I was one of the few crying "foul' on this from the start, much to the chagrin of the mods and management, and the compliant sheeple.

The FT, NYTimes, Economist and other reputable media have been warning on exactly this for the last two years. Financial Times had a series on it by one of their editors, Rana Foroohar.

I could go on, but what I can say in Sidewalk's defence is that the Waterfront Toronto plans for the Port Lands are almost as surreal and outlandish. Remediate the flow of the Don River? Absolutely, it's just plain engineering and safety good sense.

Those pics of Huckleberry Finn and and all the magic muppets happily holding pockets full of poses skipping amidst the endless woodland oases of the Land of Opulent High Rise Dreams that's to be the "New Port Lands"?

Hello, wake up! Everyone wants a piece. And they're not your friends! It's a developer's paradise, remediated with YOUR money...

Non-subscription Financial Times podcast:

Listen: Rana Foroohar — The untrammelled power of Big Tech

Why we are seeing a 'techlash' — the pushback against Facebook, Apple and Google. Featuring Prof Frank Pasquale of University of Maryland and Roger McNamee of venture capital firm Elevation Partners. With Richard Waters and Martin Sandbu of the FT

www.ft.com

See also (non-subscription)

Waterfront Toronto CEO departs

ftalphaville.ft.com

So you prefer the port lands be left a lone, a barren wasteland, as is?
While I agree with your logic, we can't have progress without change. Yes, developers get a large piece of the pie, but the public benefits as well. The flip side is either no development (progress) or massive public sector investment. Maybe I'm too naive, I don't know.

 

[TheSix]

To Sidewalk Labs defence, the Star's article was leaked without any context or a clear understanding on how both the city and Sidewalk Labs could benefit. A good deal is a win-win arrangement, it will be interesting to see how fair the proposal is. Keep in mind, there is a very good chance this land could take another 40 years to become anything, and without a strong partner (and a Ford government), I worry it will become just another 'average' waterfront.

I'm not suggesting that Toronto just accepts whatever is tossed at them, but the potential here is pretty interesting and well worth consideration and potential negotiation.

Below is the case overview I dug out of the link provided by ChesterCopperpot.

https://sidewalktoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FEB14-SWTO-Business-Case-Overview.pdf

 

[Northern Light]

So you prefer the port lands be left a lone, a barren wasteland, as is?
While I agree with your logic, we can't have progress without change. Yes, developers get a large piece of the pie, but the public benefits as well. The flip side is either no development (progress) or massive public sector investment. Maybe I'm too naive, I don't know.

The public already owns the land and is already eating the cost of flood protection and the signature new park space associated therewith.

The additional parks, roads, sewers etc that are not already present would normally be covered by developers though various legal obligations, without giving them what amounts to Tax Increment Financing.

There are some projects such as introducing LRT that would normally be picked up by the taxpayer (it's unclear to me if Sidewalk envisions picking up the tab) as well as some of the unique enhancements Sidewalk
envisions using technology and innovative construction that might be a 'public benefit' not normally achieved.

Aside from the fact we lack detail on the above.........it remains the case that Sidewalk, if acting as developer, would seek to recover its costs through market-pricing, at least in so far as it can.

I'm not sure I buy that it's worth setting the dubious precedent of turning TIF over to a private interest to obtain the above.

I reserve the right to reevaluate that position once all the facts are on the table; but by default.......this arrangement would not appeal to me.

 

[Northern Light]

Below is the case overview I dug out of the link provided by ChesterCopperpot.

https://sidewalktoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/FEB14-SWTO-Business-Case-Overview.pdf

I've reviewed this and I see merit to further discussion between SWL and the City/WT. I'm still dubious about TIF and the details still matter, but there is potential there.

SWL mentions 'facilitating' the LRT. Interesting choice of words.

They seem to be proposing to build out the infrastructure and then charge back the cost, including financing and ROE.

They note an alternative to TIF would to be hand over development charges from the developments. On principle, I don't think I could go for that wording, but I don't mind the idea in practice if they do
in fact act as delivery agent AND the City or its agencies have ownership of the delivered asset(s).

Of note from the plan:

Housing:

60% purpose-built rental
40% (of all housing) below market
20% affordable
5% deeply affordable (presumably RGI??)

Also Google's proposed Canadian HQ @ 1M sq feet.

Job totals are not mentioned, but in a conventional office space that would be upwards of 6,000 jobs.

Also mentioned is a some kind of capped ROE after which the City/WT would be entitled to profit sharing.

 

[raptor]

I've reviewed this and I see merit to further discussion between SWL and the City/WT. I'm still dubious about TIF and the details still matter, but there is potential there.

SWL mentions 'facilitating' the LRT. Interesting choice of words.

They seem to be proposing to build out the infrastructure and then charge back the cost, including financing and ROE.

They note an alternative to TIF would to be hand over development charges from the developments. On principle, I don't think I could go for that wording, but I don't mind the idea in practice if they do
in fact act as delivery agent AND the City or its agencies have ownership of the delivered asset(s).

Of note from the plan:

Housing:

60% purpose-built rental
40% (of all housing) below market
20% affordable
5% deeply affordable (presumably RGI??)

Also Google's proposed Canadian HQ @ 1M sq feet.

Job totals are not mentioned, but in a conventional office space that would be upwards of 6,000 jobs.

Also mentioned is a some kind of capped ROE after which the City/WT would be entitled to profit sharing.

They also mentioned building a timber factory to produce (timber) building materials, producing 4000 jobs.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Twitter world is freaking out on this - I don't see too many issues.

Sidewalk LAbs is essentially offering to rapidly finance and construct all required infrastructure in exchange for development charges.

Essentially they would do the financing and manage construction for the city - A P3 model more or less. In exchange they would get paid.

Seems pretty standard to me. Plus it allows for a much more rapid and likely more efficient construction of infrastructure than if the city managed it.

 

[christiesplits]

There is no way the Sidewalk Labs project goes through as proposed. If anything gets passed, it will be a greatly watered down version of the current proposal, if anything at all.

There are too many risks, the biggest being the optics of a government giving a a tech behemoth huge amounts of public funds and some degree of authority on how to use it. Look at the Amazon HQ2 debacle in New York City for how this will likely pan out.

I'd be willing to bet that outside of the development and tech industry, the general public will be overwhelmingly opposed to the project.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's so predictable. Criticize a Rube Goldberg fantasy, and the response from some is this:

So you prefer the port lands be left a lone, a barren wasteland, as is?

How in Hell do you get that? I'm on record as stating that the engineering and remediation for the Don River outflow is absolutely necessary for safety as well as undoing the damage done.

It does not then follow in a logical mind that the result, paid for by taxpayers, should be given over to Munchausen. First it was Ferris Wheels. Now it's a massive Trojan Horse.

Here's a concept: Parkland. With tasteful development added in spots. What astounds me is the unbridled audacity of Sidewalk thinking the private land that has proven untouchable can just be given over to them on a whim and wish. Let's start with Polson Pier. That has already been settled with WT, and accepted. Long ago. The same with the other industrial operations that are to stay.

And on the other side of the bitcoin:

“Companies like Amazon need a real lesson in how to deal with, and manage, and build communities,” Florida ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Florida ) said. “I’m astounded that a trillion-dollar company doesn’t know how to do that, that they’re so crass in dealing with people’s neighbourhoods and homes, that they can take a lot out and give very little back.

“What’s happened today is terrible for Amazon and terrible for New York and I would like to see mayors stand together and say ‘Amazon, you’re not going to treat us badly, go back to the table in New York and figure this out.’ ”

Toronto’s failed bid to land Amazon’s second HQ is looking smarter after New York loses campus: observers

Toby Lennox, chief executive of the agency that quarterbacked Toronto’s pitch, said the city’s bid still stands: “…we would welcome discussions with Amazon about expanding their presence across the Toronto Region …,” Lennox said.

www.thestar.com

Trojan Horses are poor runners...

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Twitter world is freaking out on this - I don't see too many issues.

Sidewalk LAbs is essentially offering to rapidly finance and construct all required infrastructure in exchange for development charges.

Essentially they would do the financing and manage construction for the city - A P3 model more or less. In exchange they would get paid.

Seems pretty standard to me. Plus it allows for a much more rapid and likely more efficient construction of infrastructure than if the city managed it.

I question why we should use public funds to help them experiment with proprietary, untested, and presumably much more expensive infrastructure on public lands. We would be assuming a lot of risk, and that is before we get into the implications of data collection and all that. If their proposed infrastructure was something we ACTUALLY wanted, it should go through an actual procurement process with open bidding.

Also they list their TIF zone as $6b in future revenues. The question easily becomes, what can we get done in the Portlands with $6b without all the risk associated with Sidewalk?

 

[steveintoronto]

I question why we should use public funds to help them experiment with proprietary, untested, and presumably much more expensive infrastructure on public lands. We would be assuming a lot of risk, and that is before we get into the implications of data collection and all that. If their proposed infrastructure was something we ACTUALLY wanted, it should go through an actual procurement process with open bidding.

Also they list their TIF zone as $6b in future revenues. The question easily becomes, what can we get done in the Portlands with $6b without all the risk associated with Sidewalk?

Something no-one in this or related strings has suggested is that if Sidewalk want a special deal for the land, then THEY pay to remediate and administrate it with associated costs and contingencies.

It's classic. A neighbourhood cleans up the filth and deprivation of a century of neglect and abuse, and then Daddy Big Bucks sweeps in to 'develop what is ours'.

Oh, did I add? "We'll build a lumber mill and production plant too".

Folks, there's a reason lumber mills aren't situated in cities. And it's not just the proximity to the source. Don't some of you ever question the rationale of what's being dangled in front of you?

In all fairness, they're probably referring to glue laminated timber, but I digress...it's not something you'd want close to an area outside of industrial zoning.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The slide deck mentions that they would self finance the more experimental stuff to avoid public risk. Obviously a deal of this scale would be complex and have a lot of details that need to be ironed out.

I just don't get the ardent and immediate response to not even consider it.


Sidewalk is a new company, but its financial backing is near unlimited. It may not have much corporate experience, but it's got deep coffers that allows it to learn its lessons.