Google, Alphabet's Vision for Toronto. "SideWalks"

[Jack Stevonovich]

For those who do not understand why such prime and coveted Waterfront land would sit for decades as a blight with no developer willing to touch it, I will explain.

This land not only represents lost opportunity to the City in terms of the cash it would have made and collected over the decades if developed but it represents a cost as the levels of gov't support the land and earn no income from it.

This was land used for decades as a Port in Toronto by Shipping companies using it offload imported goods such as sugar, oil and gas, and other into Toronto and off to N.America locales. Many people do not realize that what appears to be land locked Toronto, in the centre of the country, actually receives in, still, Ocean liner traffic coming in from the Atlantic Ocean, and following the St Lawrence river all the way into downtown Toronto. Yes the St. Lawrence river can handle the biggest ocean liners.

I am certainly not anti corporate (I have started and run and exited 3 companies) but this is perfect example of Crony Capitalism and its harm railed upon by many on the left. This issue is the cost left behind once a company is done with an area and moves on and how citizens are often left with that cost after the corporations take out all the profits. Due to limited liability and other laws that do not price in properly the full cost of the after effect you have a situation in Toronto's Eastern Waterfront, where the companies who raked in huge profits for decades where able to abandon the lands once done leaving a toxic soup in the ground that no one would want to touch.

You often see a similar thing inn residential neighbourhoods where there was once a gas station, it shut down, but developers won't buy or touch the land for about 7 years or more after.

Why?

Because as soon as that land has new ownership and they look to develop it the gov't can and will do environmental tests on the land and before granting permits REQUIRE the new owner to bring the land back up to spec. It is possible that unknown cost of doing so could make the entire proposed development unprofitable and thus not financeable. But once the gov't has found the toxins and other they can still impose an order on the new owner to clean it up, even if they are not developing it. They can seize all that new owners assets and liquidate them and apply that money to cleaning it up as these order are mandatory.

Do to the limited liability of the prior giant corporations they just get to walk away. the gov't then basically inherits these lands when no one pays the taxes and they do not force themselves to clean it up but they will force any new private owner.

so what Alphabet has jumped into here is a big unknown risk re the cost of remediation of that land. it is only once deep soil cores are taken and tested that the extent of the clean and cost will be known. they have low end and high end estimates and I am sure they are ok with both, but sometimes things on sites like this go horribly wrong and Alphabet/Google could be forced to pay a lot.

that is why this is such a big benefit Toronto as no one else has wanted to risk this and thus some of Toronto's best WaterFront property has sat as a blight for decades.

if any large developer in the future thought, 'this land has sat long enough, most toxins should be gone' and bought this land from the gov't it would almost certainly be a condo developer looking to put in yet another massive string of ultra high end condo's in Toronto. And we know some of the bigger ones have looked in the past. They would have the margin to take some risk. And i have nothing against massive developers nor high end condo's. I like to live in the latter, so its not about that.

To me, this is about Alphabet/google taking a huge risk to bring a big vision of mixed housing and employment and park lands to that section of Waterfront and ADD to the overall aesthetic and appeal of the entire city. The biggest complaint about Toronto's waterfront currently is that it ws given over to COndo developers who had no concern for its connectivity and accessibility for all the people who want to visit the Waterfront. Unlike in cities like Chicago you cannot walk Torontos water front without go in and out to the street to get around the condos that break it up.

This Eastern Stretch of waterfront in the Alphabet plan would be fully accessible to all and a massive improvement to what is there, especially when you consider if its not done, the blight is likely to remain for decades more. If the 'anti-corporate' shills manage to block this and celebrate a win over 'big corp's' while ignoring what they leave behind, that would be a true shame.

blah blah blah.... will there be hover boards?

 

[ToxicShocker]

Hipsters, hipsters everywhere

I was just in two of the hipsterest cities of LA and when I got home I realized I didn't see a single top knot.

 

[Jack Stevonovich]

I was just in two of the hipsterest cities of LA and when I got home I realized I didn't see a single top knot.

the top knot is so 2018 like ohmygosh.

I bet you were surprised you didn't see fidget spinners either.

 

[GordoBarraBJJ]

The only thing better than hobo fights are mutant hobo fights.

except when their mutant powers allow them to shoot lasers from their eyes.

 

[punky brewster]

This has gotta be the gayest thing on wheels. Nothing wrong with that, just saying...

Well......

 

[MikeMcMann]

As this project enters it final deliberation and community consultation stages and looks to be about to pass, I am excited to see if Alphabet/Google can deliver on the vision of creating this truly futuristic city within a city. If it comes out looking anything like its plans it will change and elevate Toronto to new heights.

This pushes citizens to recognize where govt's abysmally fail and in an area that has been a blight for decades with no future resolution in site, sadly private corporations may be the answer to jump in and provide solutions. Anti corporate activists fighting to block it but with no answer to decades more of the status quo, blight and polluted landscape in what should be one of Toronto's most prized real estate locations can go lump it. Gov't has failed. Time to move on.



How the urban design for Quayside evolved in response to public feedback

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

I like it. And I wish they would do this in fucking Sacramento with all that fucking land just north of downtown that Union Pacific left festering there for a god damn century. They are always “working on developing” that land. But I have lived here my whole life and nothing on it has changed. It’s just a shitload of dirt and poisonous shit to this day.

Trading a few acres of dirt for an Orwellian society does not seem like a good deal to me.

Social engineering has been doing it's job. Making people feel more and more comfortable with giving up all their privacy in exchange for convenience.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Trading a few acres of dirt for an Orwellian society does not seem like a good deal to me.

Social engineering has been doing it's job. Making people feel more and more comfortable with giving up all their privacy in exchange for convenience.

What is a "good deal"? Leaving the land toxic and undeveloped and a blight and eyesoar on the city while also costing all taxpayers lots of money?

What is the option or better deal?

 

[Brandon Wilson]

I had to laugh at 'affordable housing'. Come on. With the amount of money they're going to have to spend to get that area cleaned up, and the infrastructure they're talking about putting in place, there is no way in hell that will be 'affordable housing'. No matter how much the government gives them in kickbacks from the property taxes.

Unless of course they mean 'Under normal development, these places would cost 3 million +, but we're selling them for only 1.5 million. Come get a deal!!!'

I just don't see it.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I had to laugh at 'affordable housing'. Come on. With the amount of money they're going to have to spend to get that area cleaned up, and the infrastructure they're talking about putting in place, there is no way in hell that will be 'affordable housing'. No matter how much the government gives them in kickbacks from the property taxes.

Unless of course they mean 'Under normal development, these places would cost 3 million +, but we're selling them for only 1.5 million. Come get a deal!!!'

I just don't see it.

Toronto does have some forms of co-operative housing (Co-Ops) and while I am not sure exactly how they work, basically here is how it works.

A certain amount of units in a development are put aside for people across all income levels. You will have some units for slightly upper middle class folk, some for middle and lower middle class folk and some for truly lower class folk. I think it is done by developers in a not-for-profit model and then the development gets special tax breaks from the Feds and some of the people living there may even get subsidized to live there. I think some are mixed rental but others are mix purchase units.

The idea is that the AVERAGE cost of what we will basically call 'condo fees' is able to cover the operating costs of the complex common spaces.

I am not sure if Alphabet/Google has set aside a portion to fit into that gov't program but i think that is the case.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

What is a "good deal"? Leaving the land toxic and undeveloped and a blight and eyesoar on the city while also costing all taxpayers lots of money?

What is the option or better deal?

That is all overstated. The whole downtown Sacramento area is a shit hole full of homeless people, drug addicts and purple haired liberals. The only reason why it's "thriving" is because people drive in there to work and then get the fuck out and back to the suburbs as soon as they can. If anything is toxic about the environment down there it's the people.

Creating an Orwellian urban area that tracks the movement of everyone that lives there is not the only option to cleaning up a bad area. It's the most convenient option for people because they just allow an awful company like Google to come in and "fix" it up. Again, it's trading privacy for convenience and if that seems like a good option to you then you are part of the problem. Try thinking more than one step ahead for a change.

 

[MikeMcMann]

That is all overstated. The whole downtown Sacramento area is a shit hole full of homeless people, drug addicts and purple haired liberals. The only reason why it's "thriving" is because people drive in there to work and then get the fuck out and back to the suburbs as soon as they can. If anything is toxic about the environment down there it's the people.

Creating an Orwellian urban area that tracks the movement of everyone that lives there is not the only option to cleaning up a bad area. It's the most convenient option for people because they just allow an awful company like Google to come in and "fix" it up. Again, it's trading privacy for convenience and if that seems like a good option to you then you are part of the problem. Try thinking more than one step ahead for a change.

Well I am not speaking to the Sacramento situation as I don't know it.

It sounded like @Jack Reacheround around was speaking of a specific plot similar to the problem we have in Toronto.

And lets not conflate one issue with the other. Toronto too has bad areas with homelessness and other issues but that is not what this is about.

This is about how crony capitalism allowed companies to pollute this land so badly and then leave such that decades later the gov't has taken possession of it and being trying to get rid of it ever since. They are unwilling to remediate the land so it can be sold and no developer has been wiling to take the risk on buying and inheriting any problems under the ground not yet known.

Google is willing to take that risk and this blight on the city's for decades could become a boon. Both in terms of dollars to the city (instead of losses) that can be used in other areas or need and just for overall improvement.

Should we NEED a Google to do thi? No. Gov't should be able to do this so big Corps do not have to.

But the worst action is the action we have already had for decades. NOTHING. And NOTHING is the REAL option when ever ideologues get involved and say 'business bad' and we should strive for better and look several steps ahead but then they leave putting forth no other plan. They think their work is done with protest and never offer a solution. A weak cop out IMO.

I will speak to Toronto again and say thanks to Google or any big corp that will get in and do what the gov't refuses to do, due to being afraid of the costs.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

Well I am not speaking to the Sacramento situation as I don't know it.

It sounded like @Jack Reacheround around was speaking of a specific plot similar to the problem we have in Toronto.

And lets not conflate one issue with the other. Toronto too has bad areas with homelessness and other issues but that is not what this is about.

This is about how crony capitalism allowed companies to pollute this land so badly and then leave such that decades later the gov't has taken possession of it and being trying to get rid of it ever since. They are unwilling to remediate the land so it can be sold and no developer has been wiling to take the risk on buying and inheriting any problems under the ground not yet known.

Google is willing to take that risk and this blight on the city's for decades could become a boon. Both in terms of dollars to the city (instead of losses) that can be used in other areas or need and just for overall improvement.

Should we NEED a Google to do thi? No. Gov't should be able to do this so big Corps do not have to.

But the worst action is the action we have already had for decades. NOTHING. And NOTHING is the REAL option when ever ideologues get involved and say 'business bad' and we should strive for better and look several steps ahead but then they leave putting forth no other plan. They think their work is done with protest and never offer a solution. A weak cop out IMO.

I will speak to Toronto again and say thanks to Google or any big corp that will get in and do what the gov't refuses to do, due to being afraid of the costs.

I get what you're saying and we both know that none of this matters because neither of us or anyone else here have the money or power to be able to do anything about it so in the end it's just us sharing our opinions on the topic.

In my opinion, I'd rather just ignore the eye sore and do nothing over a quick band aid that has long term negative effects on society as a whole. I'm not going to take my time to figure out a better plan because it would just be some fantasy in my head and quite frankly, a waste of time for me to figure out and a waste of time for you to read. But I'm sure we can both agree that there are many other options to fixing an eyesore than letting Google come in and invade the privacy of every inch of your life.

In the end I don't think it's going to matter too much because cities already have video cameras on every corner and they're installing software that tracks the license plates of every car that passes by and they're starting to put facial recognition software on them as well. Google is in on all that and they want to be inside your home as well. They want to be able to create a profile of every move you make throughout the day and then sell that information for profit. I'm not ready to exchange that invasion of privacy for anything. I don't care if they offered to buy me a million dollar home in exchange for it. Our personal freedoms are more important than any convenience these companies could possibly provide.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I get what you're saying and we both know that none of this matters because neither of us or anyone else here have the money or power to be able to do anything about it so in the end it's just us sharing our opinions on the topic.

In my opinion, I'd rather just ignore the eye sore and do nothing over a quick band aid that has long term negative effects on society as a whole. I'm not going to take my time to figure out a better plan because it would just be some fantasy in my head and quite frankly, a waste of time for me to figure out and a waste of time for you to read. But I'm sure we can both agree that there are many other options to fixing an eyesore than letting Google come in and invade the privacy of every inch of your life.

In the end I don't think it's going to matter too much because cities already have video cameras on every corner and they're installing software that tracks the license plates of every car that passes by and they're starting to put facial recognition software on them as well. Google is in on all that and they want to be inside your home as well. They want to be able to create a profile of every move you make throughout the day and then sell that information for profit. I'm not ready to exchange that invasion of privacy for anything. I don't care if they offered to buy me a million dollar home in exchange for it. Our personal freedoms are more important than any convenience these companies could possibly provide.

Fair enough.

But 40 years later I see this eye sore in the heart of the city on prime land and no one will touch as they are terrified about the toxic soup left in the land.

I won't argue that it would be better done by gov't but they won't do it. I hate that the Ontario gov't let a private consortium build the only new Highway system in Ontario in decades and now that Private company is making huge money and we have some of the highest per mile tolls in the world citizens pay if they choose to use the highway. YOu can always not use and stick to the 10 times more congested prior highway. But the fact is gov't is such a big failure nowadays they just won't spend money on big future based projects when today's politicians won't be in power any more to reap the benefits. They just don't care about long term plans and only look to spend money on things that give them immediate electoral benefit. Its sad.

And when gov't fails like that, another way must be found as we ain't fixing gov't.

 

[mrsenor]

very interest

 

[Slobodan]

I would like to know what @Clippy and @Medulla Omoplata think about this

 

[MikeMcMann]

I would like to know what @Clippy and @Medulla Omoplata think about this

We should have them debate the issue. Two of the great debaters, true masters of their craft.

Master-debaters if you will.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Well I am not speaking to the Sacramento situation as I don't know it.

It sounded like @Jack Reacheround around was speaking of a specific plot similar to the problem we have in Toronto.

And lets not conflate one issue with the other. Toronto too has bad areas with homelessness and other issues but that is not what this is about.

This is about how crony capitalism allowed companies to pollute this land so badly and then leave such that decades later the gov't has taken possession of it and being trying to get rid of it ever since. They are unwilling to remediate the land so it can be sold and no developer has been wiling to take the risk on buying and inheriting any problems under the ground not yet known.

Google is willing to take that risk and this blight on the city's for decades could become a boon. Both in terms of dollars to the city (instead of losses) that can be used in other areas or need and just for overall improvement.

Should we NEED a Google to do thi? No. Gov't should be able to do this so big Corps do not have to.

But the worst action is the action we have already had for decades. NOTHING. And NOTHING is the REAL option when ever ideologues get involved and say 'business bad' and we should strive for better and look several steps ahead but then they leave putting forth no other plan. They think their work is done with protest and never offer a solution. A weak cop out IMO.

I will speak to Toronto again and say thanks to Google or any big corp that will get in and do what the gov't refuses to do, due to being afraid of the costs.

I don’t remember what this thread was about. But I was probably talking about the Union Pacific rail yards north of downtown Sacramento. The land was polluted so horribly that nobody wanted to take on cleaning it up for like 100 years. If the land was cleaned up, it would be prime real estate. And they’ve finally began doing it.

Downtown Sacramento was hit hard by the recession. But it’s coming back. The problem with the homeless is mostly a mental health crisis. I forget what proposition it was, but years ago they released all these insane people from prison, as they should, because they weren’t necessarily fit to be judged as criminals. However, what they didn’t do was commit them to mental institutions. At least, that was my understanding.

So now they’re all loose on the streets. Most are harmless. But downtown Sacramento’s food scene is on point. We are literally surrounded by farms, all of which provide the freshest food for the restaurants. It really makes a difference too.

 

[Jack Reacheround]

Trading a few acres of dirt for an Orwellian society does not seem like a good deal to me.

Social engineering has been doing it's job. Making people feel more and more comfortable with giving up all their privacy in exchange for convenience.

I may have not read everything before I posted. I don’t like the idea of any Orwellian shit either. I don’t like it when governments do it, and I don’t like it when private companies do it. I think some people believe that if it’s done by a privTe business rather than a government, it will somehow work better. That’s stupid. It won’t.

 

[MikeMcMann]

I may have not read everything before I posted. I don’t like the idea of any Orwellian shit either. I don’t like it when governments do it, and I don’t like it when private companies do it. I think some people believe that if it’s done by a privTe business rather than a government, it will somehow work better. That’s stupid. It won’t.

I believe things like this SHOULD be done by gov't but I also accept gov't WON'T do it, in most cases as I explained in post 54 above. Politicians today don't want to spend money on projects that don't complete while they are in power as they see no re-election benefit to themselves and lose that money to buy votes NOW.

So considering that real world situation we live in unfortunately I see no choice but to allow private interests build the new Highways and rape us for voluntary use after, and to build these cities and take the data when the usage of each is voluntary to those who do use it and anyone who does not want to deal with them can choose not to but they still get benefits from these projects regardless.