A group calling itself the City Builders is urging Toronto City Council to support the boulevard (remove) option in the Gardiner Expressway debate today. Collectively, some of the group’s 14 members own or control 51 hectares of land representing 20 million square feet of mixed-use development on the Toronto waterfront.
“We feel very strongly that, from a city building perspective, the boulevard option is the right choice,” said Elsa Fancello, spokesperson for the City Builders.
On Wednesday, City Council will weigh the merits of two alternatives for the future of the 2.4-kilometre stretch of the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Boulevard between Lower Jarvis Street and Logan Avenue.
One alternative, known as the remove option, would see 1.7 kilometres of elevated expressway east of Jarvis Street replaced with an at-grade, eight-lane, tree-lined boulevard. The other alternative, known as the hybrid option, would see the continuous link between the elevated expressway and the Don Valley Parkway (DVP) maintained, Lake Shore Boulevard realigned between Cherry Street and the Don River and a new multi-use pathway constructed.
Council is expected to vote on a preferred alternative for the Gardiner East Environmental Assessment as part of broader plans to rehabilitate the aging expressway.
In a June 5 letter, the City Builders argued that the hybrid option would not only run counter to the city’s approved planning regime and vision for the waterfront, but would carry higher costs than the boulevard option.
City staff estimate that the hybrid option would cost $919 million over a 100-year lifecycle while the remove option would cost $461 million over a 100-year lifecycle.
“It [the boulevard option] really does save taxpayers in the excess of $500 million, which can be used towards city-wide initiatives such as transit,” said Fancello, “and transit is a priority for city building.”
The City Builders also pointed out that the city’s estimates fail to capture the opportunity costs of the hybrid option. The remove option would free up 17.5 acres for development compared to the hybrid option’s five acres, with the difference of 12 acres representing a land value of $150 million and potential investment of around $2 billion.
What’s more, the hybrid option would have an impact on existing development plans.
Plans for 3C Waterfront, a mixed-use development slated for a 14-acre site in the Keating Channel District, are nearly finalized, said Fancello, who is also the development manager for Castlepoint Numa. The hybrid option would require the city to appropriate a portion of these lands for a new off-ramp for the Gardiner East and quash plans for a waterfront promenade linking the lands to the rest of the eastern waterfront.
The city would face additional costs to expropriate private land and expose itself to potential claims of injurious affection as a result.
Meanwhile, Mayor John Tory continued to plug the hybrid option in a Monday night speech at the Empire Club of Canada. He cited the negative impact the remove option would have on traffic congestion, which he said would in turn affect the economy, productivity and quality of life.
Mayor Tory put the cost in terms of how much money the city would need in the bank today to fund the options: $336 for the hybrid option or $240 million for the remove option. It’s a $96-million difference that he said would be wiped out within three years by the annual $37-million cost to the economy of increased congestion and lost productivity.
The remove option was initially projected to add five to 10 minutes to peak-hour morning travel times. An optimized remove option has brought that increase down to three to five minutes, a projection based on transportation modelling.
In his speech Monday, Mayor Tory said that the hybrid option “is not a perfect option but I believe it is the best available option.”
“I am not the mayor of downtown developers. I am not the mayor of one political faction or another. I am not the mayor of one part of the city or another. Or the mayor for cars or for bikes or for trucks,” said Tory. “I am the mayor of one Toronto — the mayor who must take the broad interest of all Torontonians into account.”
Early last year, Toronto city staff recommended the remove option over the repair and maintain option for the Gardiner East Environmental Assessment alternative. Shortly thereafter, First Gulf, which has plans to redevelop the former Lever site, proposed the hybrid option as a middle path that would balance economic development opportunities and concerns about negative traffic effects.
First Gulf said in a recent letter to Toronto City Council that it supports both the hybrid and removal options, emphasizing the urgency of making a decision now. Delaying a decision, it said, would effectively endorse the earlier repair and maintain option.
In May, Toronto city staff reported back to the public works and infrastructure committee without making a recommendation between the remove and hybrid options. Staff characterized both options as “strong and viable,” with the hybrid option preferred from an infrastructure and transportation perspective and the remove option preferred from an economics, environment and urban design perspective.
Media reports have suggested that city councillors are evenly split between the two options, with about a dozen councillors who are either undecided or haven’t made their position known.
Michelle Ervin is the editor of CondoBusiness.
