Not convinced encapsulating the Hearn in skyscrapers is great adaptive reuse or a great spot for 10,000 units. It's isolated and, AFAIK, will remain industrial south of the channel. The Portland Energy Centre will need taller stacks for sure.
 
goodcitywhenfinished said:
I like it and I am sad to hear it won’t happen.

Seems like a rule of Toronto development: any ambitious and well designed proposal will reliably never be built.
Click to expand...

That is too extreme a statement.

Yes, we do have an issue with certain developers/assemblers/flippers making non-serious proposals in order to gain zoning that allows for profitable re-sale of said lands.

That's unfortunate, but easily addressable by amending provincial law in two respects.

That a rendering used for the purpose of obtaining an approval is legally binding as the final design except where otherwise approved by the applicable City Council; along with Use IT or Lose IT zoning, that means if you don't obtain permits to build within 2 years, of Zoning approval, the zoning change is automatically rescinded in its entirety.

That would spike the time-wasters.

***

As to this proposal, no one is engaging in any conspiracy against it, it simply can't be built right now (lacks servicing, lacks bridges, lacks proper road access, lacks transit access etc etc etc..

None of those things is planned to be in place in the next 10 years, nor is any funded.

Beyond that, anything is possible. But one imagines the current proponent will have long since exited with or without any approvals here. If one were exceedingly charitable, this proposal is viable in the distant future, subject to a bevy of conditions, and maybe, something here is completed in 20 years; but truthfully, as it stands, this should be called out for the deception that it is, by a landowner with no desire or resources to build what is shown, in a location not currently suited to same.

None of that is the City's fault. Its just a greedy fiction.
 
Since we're in the realm of the vapourous and the ethereal, might I also suggest a land swap with Hydro One to free up that switching yard between the Hearn and the shipping channel? If we're going to be spending the equivalent of the GDP of a small nation on this project, then why not at least give it a fantastic waterfront park while we're at it?
 
^I imagine that this will be a phased development thus massive public investment isn’t required to get going. And the City has already stated that as long as the proponent provides essential services they are ok with beginning.
 
Last edited:
Doppleganger said:
Since we're in the realm of the vapourous and the ethereal, might I also suggest a land swap with Hydro One to free up that switching yard between the Hearn and the shipping channel? If we're going to be spending the equivalent of the GDP of a small nation on this project, then why not at least give it a fantastic waterfront park while we're at it?
Click to expand...

How would this be economically viable?

You're talking about building an entirely new power plant, immediately adjacent to the existing one.........at an extraordinary cost.

Btw, the presence of the power plant is one of the things that makes this vapourware. That's noted in the material I posted in terms of mitigation requirements, due to said plant, which I would argue are under-stated.

Its also unclear to me that the PEC would actually fit on the remaining parcel......and to the extent that it would, how that would impact the proposed realignment of Unwin.

Even if you resolve all of that, you're now putting a brand now power plant up against all of the existing parkland, and, cutting off the new community from same.

Non-starter.
 
Northern Light said:
For the record, this proposal is more vapour than anything Kingsett has 'proposed' in the last decade.

I can enumerate a long list of reasons...........but for now.......don't anyone hold their breath at this getting off the ground anytime soon.......if ever.
Click to expand...
"Ever" is a long time, but it's closer to reality than "anytime soon", even.
northyorker1 said:
honest question, why would anyone want to live there?
Click to expand...
A few might, but not in the style being proposed here (think Toronto Island-style cottages, not shoeboxes entirely disconnected from transit).
ChesterCopperpot said:
This will start after the get The Orbit finished :)
Click to expand...
Best take yet.
 
ProjectEnd said:
"Ever" is a long time, but it's closer to reality than "anytime soon", even.
Click to expand...

If that implies less than a decade, I would sincerely ask who is paying for the bridges, and the transit.

I don't see it, but you may well have insight I do not.
 
Northern Light said:
How would this be economically viable?

You're talking about building an entirely new power plant, immediately adjacent to the existing one.........at an extraordinary cost.

Btw, the presence of the power plant is one of the things that makes this vapourware. That's noted in the material I posted in terms of mitigation requirements, due to said plant, which I would argue are under-stated.

Its also unclear to me that the PEC would actually fit on the remaining parcel......and to the extent that it would, how that would impact the proposed realignment of Unwin.

Even if you resolve all of that, you're now putting a brand now power plant up against all of the existing parkland, and, cutting off the new community from same.

Non-starter.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about building a new power plant. I only suggested relocating the existing switching yard north of the Hearn to free up that area so that it could be better utilized as a public space along the shipping channel. Hydro One already owns a parcel of land east of the gas-powered station where it could be relocated, and this would have no impact on any realignment of Unwin. Of course, it would be costly, but if we're already making a substantial commitment to rehabilitating the Hearn, it might be worth considering so that we can better enjoy this attraction from all sides.
 
Doppleganger said:
I never said anything about building a new power plant. I only suggested relocating the existing switching yard north of the Hearn to free up that area so that it could be better utilized as a public space along the shipping channel. Hydro One already owns a parcel of land east of the gas-powered station where it could be relocated, and this would have no impact on any realignment of Unwin. Of course, it would be costly, but if we're already making a substantial commitment to rehabilitating the Hearn, it might be worth considering so that we can better enjoy this attraction from all sides.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I suppose.

Though I did not read your post as being that specific, but perhaps that was my oversight.

Regardless...........unless PE corrects me............. I see no reason to believe this will be happening..........for a very long time, if ever.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top