Toronto Wins 2015 Pan Am Games

[habfanman]

Originally Posted by niwell

^Those things are in Employment Areas. Do I need to spell it out for you? Should I list some relevant policy documents?

Not every bit of the waterfront should be a park. Well, I guess some people believe that but don't have any clue of the economic reality Toronto is facing in terms of employment creation and retention.

Sure, list all the policy documents you want. We can have a good laugh 30 years from now when we see how little they resemble the actual deveopment that was put in place.

Not all the waterfront can be parkland as is evidenced by the little hodge podge bits that are currently there, but shouldn't the last remainig bit have a large public component that is set aside for all citizens and not just those who can afford to buy into it? Chicago did it with Millenium Park and I'm pretty sure that they face realities similar to those of Toronto. I don't see condos and employment zones in Millenium Park.

[habfanman]

Originally Posted by Sacamano

It's evident Habsfan has some issues in regards to our city so no sense in feeding him.

I think you're possibly confused. The billion dollars isn't being used to built housing specifically for atheles. It's being used to build market and non-market housing to temporarily house the atheletes. There is no reason why the governments wouldn't profit from the sale of the market housing.

Toronto used to be my city too and my only "issue" is with Montrealers who want to follow the same development patterns without thinking of the repercussions.

How much would you like to bet that when the bills for the Pan Ams start coming in and the lack of tangible benefits become apparent, the non-market housing- one of the main benefits touted by the proponents- will be dropped à la Vancouver Olympic Village?

[niwell]

There are HUGE historical differences between Toronto and Chicago in terms of waterfront development. Without getting into it in any level of detail Chicago always intended its waterfront to be public with the bulk of industry located inland along the river. Toronto's direct waterfront was industrial and the remaining built form reflects that.

For the record I'm not referring to the pretty pictures that show mixed use communities in the Port Lands. I think those are a pipe dream and nothing more. In my mind everything East of Redpath should be reserved for employment uses, and in this context Corus is actually quite important. The recent enactment of a Port Lands CIP seems to reflect this future despite whatever renderings are released by various groups. By definition Employment Areas really aught not to have large public components (in this case the southern fringe of the port lands might be the exception) due to the detrimental effect sensitive land uses have on industry.

The result might not be pretty, but quite frankly the Eastern waterfront and Port Lands are a bit out of the way and are not the best location for a major public space. There is still quite a lot that can be done with the central waterfront (the wavedecks for instance have proved quite successful) and in my mind it isn't half as bad as many make it out to be. Particularly when you consider the history of the area and what was there to begin with.


I guess what it comes down to is that I don't understand this obsession with the waterfront in Toronto. With the notable exception of the Island, Beach and the far western communities Toronto has never really been "about" the lake in the same way Chicago has. Not entirely sure why this is an awful thing, but then again I don't understand why people pay more to look at water.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by habfanman

Sure, list all the policy documents you want. We can have a good laugh 30 years from now when we see how little they resemble the actual deveopment that was put in place.

Not all the waterfront can be parkland as is evidenced by the little hodge podge bits that are currently there, but shouldn't the last remainig bit have a large public component that is set aside for all citizens and not just those who can afford to buy into it? Chicago did it with Millenium Park and I'm pretty sure that they face realities similar to those of Toronto. I don't see condos and employment zones in Millenium Park.

That's like saying you don't see condos and employment zones in hTO Park. Chicago has condos and employment just as close to the water as Toronto - look north of Grant Park.

[habfanman]

Originally Posted by Mister F

That's like saying you don't see condos and employment zones in hTO Park. Chicago has condos and employment just as close to the water as Toronto - look north of Grant Park.

HtO park is a tiny speck compared to Millenium Park and it's surrounded by condos and parking lots. It's better than what was there before but it's too small to be of much use for anything interesting.

Grant Park is connected to Millenium Park making for one huge public space, not a series of little gimmicky bits inserted between hotels and condos.

[niwell]

For what it's worth Millennium Park has been criticized by the Project for Public Spaces as failing to act as a cohesive public space. Yes it's beautiful and a great place to be, but falls into the trap of thinking public space = design. Too compartmentalized and focuses design elements as opposed to interaction of people.

You don't need a huge park to have a functioning public space. Some of the best public spaces are ad-hoc and don't need award winning design. Especially given that the island (which is a huge public space) is so close by I'm not sure why the central waterfront needs a huge park. Aside from being able to say there is a big park would it really be in the best interests of the population? If there aren't dwellings on the waterfront who is going to make the trek there? Also there's the trick that a smaller space with x number of people will be a much more lively and attractive space than a much larger space with the same (or even slightly more) people.

To put it another way would it be in Toronto's best interest to use limited funds to expropriate large amounts of fairly expensive property? There's a lot more to it than just saying: "hey, we should have a big ass waterfront park!".

[Dr Nevergold]

I didn't comment on this particular thread, its great news for Toronto overall.

[habfanman]

Originally Posted by niwell

There are HUGE historical differences between Toronto and Chicago in terms of waterfront development. Without getting into it in any level of detail Chicago always intended its waterfront to be public with the bulk of industry located inland along the river. Toronto's direct waterfront was industrial and the remaining built form reflects that.

For the record I'm not referring to the pretty pictures that show mixed use communities in the Port Lands. I think those are a pipe dream and nothing more. In my mind everything East of Redpath should be reserved for employment uses, and in this context Corus is actually quite important. The recent enactment of a Port Lands CIP seems to reflect this future despite whatever renderings are released by various groups. By definition Employment Areas really aught not to have large public components (in this case the southern fringe of the port lands might be the exception) due to the detrimental effect sensitive land uses have on industry.

The result might not be pretty, but quite frankly the Eastern waterfront and Port Lands are a bit out of the way and are not the best location for a major public space. There is still quite a lot that can be done with the central waterfront (the wavedecks for instance have proved quite successful) and in my mind it isn't half as bad as many make it out to be. Particularly when you consider the history of the area and what was there to begin with.


I guess what it comes down to is that I don't understand this obsession with the waterfront in Toronto. With the notable exception of the Island, Beach and the far western communities Toronto has never really been "about" the lake in the same way Chicago has. Not entirely sure why this is an awful thing, but then again I don't understand why people pay more to look at water.

Niwell, the Millenium Park site consisted of train tracks and parking lots before it was transformed. I'm sure that Chicago could have easily sold the land to developers for top dollar but they didn't, they had enough vision to set it aside and create something unique for its citizens to enjoy for all time.

The wavedecks are successful because in the areas where they were installed, the waterfront consisted of the sidewalk and nothing else. It's like taking a crowded one lane street, expanding it to two lanes and calling it a success because it's instantly filled with traffic. The wavedecks essentially doubled the size of the sidewalk.

The Montréal waterfront was an industrial zone well into the 70's and there was intense pressure in the 60's, 70's and 80's to build a Gardiner-like monstrosity along rue de la Commune and condos along the water as well as on the island park, Parc Jean-Drapeau. Fortunately, the entire central portion bordering Old Montréal and the Islands were redeveloped as a 100% public space and the City can run any type of event imaginable without worrying about noise and disturbance complaints from yuppie condo owners.

Personally, I don't care what Toronto does with its waterfront. I stopped caring when I lived there and realised that developers could do pretty much as they pleased while the rest of us were stuck with 30 year plans; plans that were always subject to 'The Compromise', 'The Cheapening' and 'The Last Minute Redesign'.. if they ever got off the ground at all. My only concern is for Montrealers who, distracted by large shiny things, look to Toronto-style development as a positive, when I see it as something to be avoided.

[habfanman]

Originally Posted by niwell

For what it's worth Millennium Park has been criticized by the Project for Public Spaces as failing to act as a cohesive public space. Yes it's beautiful and a great place to be, but falls into the trap of thinking public space = design. Too compartmentalized and focuses design elements as opposed to interaction of people.

You don't need a huge park to have a functioning public space. Some of the best public spaces are ad-hoc and don't need award winning design. Especially given that the island (which is a huge public space) is so close by I'm not sure why the central waterfront needs a huge park. Aside from being able to say there is a big park would it really be in the best interests of the population? If there aren't dwellings on the waterfront who is going to make the trek there? Also there's the trick that a smaller space with x number of people will be a much more lively and attractive space than a much larger space with the same (or even slightly more) people.

To put it another way would it be in Toronto's best interest to use limited funds to expropriate large amounts of fairly expensive property? There's a lot more to it than just saying: "hey, we should have a big ass waterfront park!".

While I don't particularly like the design of Millenium Park, I admire the fact that they kept it public and didn't simply build over it. It has some great features as well as some gimmicky, overdesigned features, but individual opinions will differ as to which is which. I much prefer Grant Park.

[niwell]

Originally Posted by habfanman

Niwell, the Millenium Park site consisted of train tracks and parking lots before it was transformed. I'm sure that Chicago could have easily sold the land to developers for top dollar but they didn't, they had enough vision to set it aside and create something unique for its citizens to enjoy for all time.

....
I stopped caring when I lived there and realised that developers could do pretty much as they pleased while the rest of us were stuck with 30 year plans; plans that were always subject to 'The Compromise', 'The Cheapening' and 'The Last Minute Redesign'.. if they ever got off the ground at all. My only concern is for Montrealers who, distracted by large shiny things, look to Toronto-style development as a positive, when I see it as something to be avoided.

I'm aware of what was there before Millennium but there were large swaths of existing park to the south as a result of city policy right from the get-go.

I will agree with you about thinking any form of (tall) development is positive, as that's clearly not the case. I personally don't care too much about the condoization of a waterfront that nobody has ever cared about, but the huge amounts of residential development on former industrial lands are immensely damaging to the city from an economic standpoint.

Originally Posted by habfanman

While I don't particularly like the design of Millenium Park, I admire the fact that they kept it public and didn't simply build over it. It has some great features as well as some gimmicky, overdesigned features, but individual opinions will differ as to which is which. I much prefer Grant Park.

Agreed. The closest similarity in Toronto would actually be the railyards where the roundhouse is now. That land is actually mostly public. The actual waterfront was privately owned. I haven't looked into it but I wouldn't be surprised if much of it was bought up by numbered corporations (read: developers) long ago.

It's helpful to look into why exactly such things are allowed to happen though. Planning in Chicago and (to a lesser extent) Montreal is a very different beast than the convoluted powerless version that the City of Toronto has to deal with. Everything is driven by exacting interpretations of policy and the fear of lengthy and costly OMB hearings. Unfortunately councilors and community groups don't necessarily understand this and the situation often devolves into an expensive clusterfuck. Sometimes I really wish it worked like in Chicago, where if Daley says it goes, it goes.


In any event this is very off-topic. As for the Pan-Am games I think it's great that Toronto got them because it will mean some useful projects will go forward on the Province's bill. Namely the Scarborough Malvern LRT line and a kickstart to the Lower Donlands, one of the few areas of the waterfront I am happy to see go to mixed use.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by habfanman

HtO park is a tiny speck compared to Millenium Park and it's surrounded by condos and parking lots. It's better than what was there before but it's too small to be of much use for anything interesting.

Grant Park is connected to Millenium Park making for one huge public space, not a series of little gimmicky bits inserted between hotels and condos.

My point was that you don't find condo towers in the middle of public parks in Toronto as you implied. Again, look north of Grant Park, where much of Chicago's downtown is. The waterfront there consists of condo towers, a highway, and a concrete strip you can walk on.

Originally Posted by habfanman

Niwell, the Millenium Park site consisted of train tracks and parking lots before it was transformed. I'm sure that Chicago could have easily sold the land to developers for top dollar but they didn't, they had enough vision to set it aside and create something unique for its citizens to enjoy for all time.

The city didn't sell the land to developers because it never belonged to the city in the first place. It belonged to the railways.

In Toronto the actual waterfront (the south side of Queen's Quay) is publicly owned and there hasn't been a condo tower built there in decades. High rises are only built on the north side, which is mostly private. You'll find the same development pattern in Chicago, New York, Singapore, Sydney, etc.

[SteelTown]

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/02...am-games-costs

Did I read that right? The atheles village alone is now pegged at $2.6 billion?

[BCTed]

Originally Posted by SteelTown

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/01/02...am-games-costs

Did I read that right? The atheles village alone is now pegged at $2.6 billion?

I don't believe that you did read it correctly. The article states that the games are "already $1.6 billion over budget." It does not state that the village is "$1.6 billion over budget."

[SteelTown]

Gotcha! Thanks.

If they need to cut something perhaps scale the athletes village down and have some athletes reside at York, U of T and Ryerson.

[Symz]

Believe it or not, Windsor doesn't have an olympic standard 50m pool, but finally will in 2013.

Back to T.O. and Hamilton, congratulations! $$

[ssiguy]

I hope this isn't surprising anyone. Toronto hands out infrastructure contracts with as much accountability as Montreal does with it's highway contracts.
Thing is, nobody in Canada even knows that Toronto has even got the games and the few who do know couldn't care less.
I like to think of myself as reasonably informed but until I read of this forum that Toronto got the Pan Am games, I didn't even know they still had them. I thought they went the way of Pan Am Airlines.
Only in Toronto would they throw a party and have no one come.