[AlvinofDiaspar]

So why wouldn’t we let Alphabet take a shot, with their own money and risk? How could what they build possibly be worse than the alternative of letting Tory and his band of incompetents loose? Did Alphabet fail to pay off the right people?

You are asking the wrong question - the right question is who are the real estate/developers players agitating against Sidewalk, and what's their relationship with the current government.

And of course, the left is agitating for other, perhaps noble reasons - but I fear they may be played as they usually are.

AoD

 

[Jonny5]

Doctoroff says if the plan to fund a transit line in exchange for fees and taxes doesn't work out, he feels there are a "bunch" of other transit options for his company to use, but he hasn't narrowed them down yet.

Obviously meaning they have no clue what the other options would be.

Doctoroff says Sidewalk Labs was not initially aware of how "severe" mobility issues in the area were before, but has since done extensive traffic analysis and learned of the complexities of the area.

LOL
'We didn't know pretty much anything about this part of Toronto until 2 years after we signed an agreement to develop a neighbourhood there.' I wonder if he has even physically been there himself yet?
I doubt he has the self-awareness to know how much his comments reek of arrogance. I bet he would respond without irony: "I went there on Google Streetview!"

 

[DSC]

Obviously meaning they have no clue what the other options would be.

LOL
'We didn't know pretty much anything about this part of Toronto until 2 years after we signed an agreement to develop a neighbourhood there.' I wonder if he has even physically been there himself yet?
I doubt he has the self-awareness to know how much his comments reek of arrogance. I bet he would respond without irony: "I went there on Google Streetview!"

why does admitting that you are not sure what is the best thing to do "arrogance"? If the Portlands were easy to develop they would have been developed decades ago. The Google plan may not be best idea there is but it HAS got us all talking and that may actually lead to something. If getting transit there is a necessary first step (as it probably is) then looking at ways to do this without raising our (far too low) taxes it is certainly worth talking about.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

You are asking the wrong question - the right question is who are the real estate/developers players agitating against Sidewalk, and what's their relationship with the current government.

Perhaps the ones that don't understand why this foreign tech company has been granted preferential treatment in a public bidding process, and seemingly doesn't think they are required to play by the established rules of the Ontario and Toronto development, planning, and construction industry? From industry's perspective, they play by the rules and eat costs imposed on them by government. They are the ones with the proven, established track record of developing in this city.

Meanwhile, Sidewalk Toronto is the company that doesn't think that the OBC applies to them.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Perhaps the ones that don't understand why this foreign tech company has been granted preferential treatment in a public bidding process, and seemingly doesn't think they are required to play by the established rules of the Ontario and Toronto development, planning, and construction industry? From industry's perspective, they play by the rules and eat costs imposed on them by government. They are the ones with the proven, established track record of developing in this city.

Meanwhile, Sidewalk Toronto is the company that doesn't think that the OBC applies to them.

Like RIM? Thank gawd they're playing by the rules. You're playing this game to win, not to breed the same old. Let's not forget for one second that these rules that you have mentioned is driven just as much by the local industries than anyone else. The whole of this project is to innovate and think outside the box.

Having said that, at the end of the day Sidewalk still have to deliver a proposal that is actually acceptable and provide tangible benefits to the city and Canadian industry - and that remains to be seen.

AoD

 

[pman]

Perhaps the ones that don't understand why this foreign tech company has been granted preferential treatment in a public bidding process, and seemingly doesn't think they are required to play by the established rules of the Ontario and Toronto development, planning, and construction industry? From industry's perspective, they play by the rules and eat costs imposed on them by government. They are the ones with the proven, established track record of developing in this city.

Meanwhile, Sidewalk Toronto is the company that doesn't think that the OBC applies to them.

Why should Sidewalk’s corporate nationality matter? Foreigners = bad? Make Toronto Great Again?

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

Why should Sidewalk’s corporate nationality matter? Foreigners = bad? Make Toronto Great Again?

Good job on missing the point.

There are many advantages for doing business with local firms. They understand our market and city's challenges and issues better, are more inclined to hire domestically/locally, and more interested in following our rules and regulations due to their invested interest in maintaining good will and relations with the public, city staff, and officials for their continued cooperation on future projects.

The universality of these foreign tech giant's reach means they gain from our environment but are not required to obey our rules and regulations. Uber did not have to seek permission to launch a service in Toronto, neither did AirBNB. They just... could, and we had few forms of reprisal. Similarly, SWL's actual employees are in New York. They actually don't understand the site specificity required to pull off a project like this. This is evidenced very recently by their CEO seemingly not knowing what the state of the Waterfront LRT is, but also with their general lack of understanding of the Toronto housing market, their complete disregard for the OBC, and their presumptuous pretensions over eventual control of the Portlands.

​

Toronto has more than enough companies to pull off a project like Quayside. Why are we taking the risk with Sidewalk, and why are public officials giving them preferential treatment?

 

[WeirdFishes]

Good job on missing the point.

There are many advantages for doing business with local firms. They understand our market and city's challenges and issues better, are more inclined to hire domestically/locally, and more interested in following our rules and regulations due to their invested interest in maintaining good will and relations with the public, city staff, and officials for their continued cooperation on future projects.

The universality of these foreign tech giant's reach means they gain from our environment but are not required to obey our rules and regulations. Uber did not have to seek permission to launch a service in Toronto, neither did AirBNB. They just... could, and we had few forms of reprisal. Similarly, SWL's actual employees are in New York. They actually don't understand the site specificity required to pull off a project like this. This is evidenced very recently by their CEO seemingly not knowing what the state of the Waterfront LRT is, but also with their general lack of understanding of the Toronto housing market, their complete disregard for the OBC, and their presumptuous pretensions over eventual control of the Portlands.

​

Toronto has more than enough companies to pull off a project like Quayside. Why are we taking the risk with Sidewalk, and why are public officials giving them preferential treatment?

What Toronto companies do you think could pull this off? Just curious because I don't think anyone could dream up half of what Sidewalk is envisioning. Unless by "pull off" you mean deliver mediocre work that is completely off brief. Which in that case, yes, there are tons of Toronto companies who could deliver an average vision for the district.

 

[jje1000]

Sidewalk applies the pressure? I still think that they're jumping the gun ahead of any serious and concrete proposals, but I also think if push comes to shove, Tory will pull out the stops to keep Sidewalk in Toronto. Will we see the Waterfront East LRT bumped up the queue?

Sidewalk Labs could pull out of Toronto Quayside project if transit isn't built, CEO says

The chief executive officer of an Alphabet-backed entity planning a high tech neighbourhood in Toronto revealed Thursday that mass transit might be the project's deal breaker.

Dan Doctoroff of Sidewalk Labs told The Canadian Press in an interview that his company may lose interest in the project if transit to the area isn't built.

“At the end of the day, if there is no light rail through the project, then the project is not interesting to us, to be perfectly honest,” he said.

“I think if we ultimately get to a place - and we are by no means there and we remain optimistic - but get to a place where we conclude that achieving the lofty ambitions that we and Waterfront Toronto and their government constituents have established for this project are not possible, then obviously we would be foolish to continue.”

And while he expected challenges with the project, he acknowledged the company's traffic analysis has unearthed some surprises.

“We weren't aware of the mobility issues and how severe they are,” he said. “We didn't know enough about the site a year ago or more than a year ago.”

In emails to The Canadian Press on Wednesday, spokespeople for the provincial and municipal governments stressed their commitments to transit in general, but also noted that Sidewalk Labs' proposal has yet to be approved by any level of government.

Aside from transit, Doctoroff also opened up about how the project is faring with potential partners, whom the company has long said it would be open to working with, despite being willing to fund and build the project itself if it can't find companies to collaborate with.

“We have had a lots of expressions of people who would like to invest alongside of us,” he said. “We at most expect to develop 10 to 15 per cent (of the project). That is what we think is necessary simply to prove to others that what we are talking about makes sense. We are prepared to take that risk, but I think others are prepared to do that with us.”

Sidewalk Labs has proposed an independent civic data trust be set up to establish rules around data use, make it open and accessible to people while offering privacy protection and ensure that Sidewalk Labs does not receive any special status or rights when it comes to data access.

Sidewalk Labs hasn't said what data could be collected in Quayside, but Doctoroff said people in the neighbourhood will likely be able to opt out of having their data shared for “some things.”

“The issue with data in public space is it is very hard to get people to opt in or opt out because you just don't know who they are and they are moving through,” he said. “Therefore, our belief - and it will have to get approved - is that is a public policy question that ultimately needs to be interpreted by this independent trust.”

Exactly how these concepts will work will be contained in an official plan to be submitted soon and subject to approvals from all three levels of government.

Doctoroff said the report will also contain information on how much the company intends to profit from Quayside.

“We just want to earn a reasonable return,” he said. “Our primary objective here is we want to create something that is great.”

Sidewalk Labs could pull out of Toronto Quayside project if transit isn't built, CEO says - BNN Bloomberg

Sidewalk Labs chief executive officer Dan Doctoroff tells The Canadian Press that the Quayside project will no longer be interesting to his company if transit can't be built along the 12-acre property on the city's waterfront where the neighbourhood is being planned.

www.bnnbloomberg.ca

 

[pman]

Good job on missing the point.

There are many advantages for doing business with local firms. They understand our market and city's challenges and issues better, are more inclined to hire domestically/locally, and more interested in following our rules and regulations due to their invested interest in maintaining good will and relations with the public, city staff, and officials for their continued cooperation on future projects.

The universality of these foreign tech giant's reach means they gain from our environment but are not required to obey our rules and regulations. Uber did not have to seek permission to launch a service in Toronto, neither did AirBNB. They just... could, and we had few forms of reprisal. Similarly, SWL's actual employees are in New York. They actually don't understand the site specificity required to pull off a project like this. This is evidenced very recently by their CEO seemingly not knowing what the state of the Waterfront LRT is, but also with their general lack of understanding of the Toronto housing market, their complete disregard for the OBC, and their presumptuous pretensions over eventual control of the Portlands.

​

Toronto has more than enough companies to pull off a project like Quayside. Why are we taking the risk with Sidewalk, and why are public officials giving them preferential treatment?

You know, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. As for those bastards at Uber, if that’s an example of nefarious foreigners upending the natural order of mediocrity and dysfunction in Toronto, I say bring on the foreigners.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

You know, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. As for those bastards at Uber, if that’s an example of nefarious foreigners upending the natural order of mediocrity and dysfunction in Toronto, I say bring on the foreigners.

If you read patriotism into that post, than I don't know what to tell you.

For the record, I honestly wouldn't have an issue if the Chinese state-company Greenland Group was delivering Quayside. They are working on several projects in Toronto already (including 215 Lake Shore just down the street), have a local office, and would likely do a very fine job with Quayside. I am suspicious about Sidewalk because they are proposing something that puts the city in a lot of risk, desire municipal revenues to do it, and could pull the plug any time in the future and leave us with the burden of maintaining their infrastructure.

There are many questions to be asked, and my worry is that we as the City don't have the state or intellectual capacity to engage with Google and ensure that the public interest is maintained with this Quayside Sidewalk project. It is unfortunate if those concerns are perceived to constitute fear-mongering or perceived as a resistance to innovation. Not all disruption is necessarily for the better and there is a possibility that we are being duped by a corporation with some very deep pockets. Sidewalk hasn't given us sufficient reason yet to drink the kool-aid, unless all people care about are some pretty Danish renderings of buildings that are literally illegal to construct.

 

[Dr. Snoot]

I am suspicious about Sidewalk because they are proposing something that puts the city in a lot of risk, desire municipal revenues to do it, and could pull the plug any time in the future and leave us with the burden of maintaining their infrastructure.

But that's exactly what it is and what the City asked for: a proposal. The City hasn't signed any agreement, it hasn't shared any revenue, no exceptions from building standards have been granted. I guarantee you a legal agreement (and changes to the law, if granted) will have to address all of these issues.

The whole point of this exercise was to propose novel ideas and push the envelope. Feel free to ask questions, but at this point I do see a lot of your posts (and associated media frothing at the mouth) as fear mongering. In my mind, at this aspirational stage, the more pressure to try new things the better.

 

[Hieberrr]

I've been back and forth with this proposal for the last month or so.

On the one hand, I think with Alphabet's/Google's assistance, this could end up being a revolutionary project of sorts. On the other hand, the fact that they can't promise that the privacy of residents can be protected by either themselves or other partners leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

At the end of the day, it's the residents of Toronto who will be living, working, and visiting this area for the foreseeable future. Whether we're looking at 10, 20, 50, or even 100 years from now, I wouldn't want to set future residents up for privacy invasion. Especially as Toronto continues to grow and the "housing crisis" continues.

So, all to say -- while the proposal is "cool", it's better off being treated as yet another neighbourhood. Google's involvement isn't crucial to it.

 

[pman]

If you read patriotism into that post, than I don't know what to tell you.

For the record, I honestly wouldn't have an issue if the Chinese state-company Greenland Group was delivering Quayside. They are working on several projects in Toronto already (including 215 Lake Shore just down the street), have a local office, and would likely do a very fine job with Quayside. I am suspicious about Sidewalk because they are proposing something that puts the city in a lot of risk, desire municipal revenues to do it, and could pull the plug any time in the future and leave us with the burden of maintaining their infrastructure.

There are many questions to be asked, and my worry is that we as the City don't have the state or intellectual capacity to engage with Google and ensure that the public interest is maintained with this Quayside Sidewalk project. It is unfortunate if those concerns are perceived to constitute fear-mongering or perceived as a resistance to innovation. Not all disruption is necessarily for the better and there is a possibility that we are being duped by a corporation with some very deep pockets. Sidewalk hasn't given us sufficient reason yet to drink the kool-aid, unless all people care about are some pretty Danish renderings of buildings that are literally illegal to construct.

I read patriotism into your post because you mention that Alphabet is foreign. You imply that’s a problem. I say the fact that they’re a US company is irrelevant. Your observation about Alphabet’s nationality is as asinine as saying Brookfield shouldn’t be allowed to develop Hudson Yards because they’re Canadian, though I guess it’s different when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

I read patriotism into your post because you mention that Alphabet is foreign. You imply that’s a problem. I say the fact that they’re a US company is irrelevant. Your observation about Alphabet’s nationality is as asinine as saying Brookfield shouldn’t be allowed to develop Hudson Yards because they’re Canadian, though I guess it’s different when the shoe is on the other foot.

The nationality of the company isn't relevant when they have a local presence, branch office and hire local employees. Brookfield has a large presence in New York City. Sidewalk is essentially all New York based, with little presence in Toronto besides an army of lobbyists. This could change in the future, but their unfamiliarity with the site beyond google streetview has been made evident several times. (Hell, early renderings got the location of the CN Tower wrong)

That might be all good and well if Quayside is treated as an experimental playground. But, Quayside is also supposed to be a neighbourhood one day, with people living and working in it, and the rest of us Torontonians are supposed to also benefit from the future municipal revenues generated on the site. An understanding how this site connects and relates to the rest of the city is important.