elliot
October 6th, 2005, 12:36 AM
Aussie developers eye T.O.'s waterfront
CHRISTOPHER HUME
Like Toronto, Melbourne has a waterfront. Unlike Toronto, Melbourne began rebuilding its waterfront a decade ago.
The work is still 20 years from completion, but money — $3.5 billion — has been spent and the process started.
Here, of course, we haven't reached that point quite yet.
But Toronto's tardiness was good news to a delegation of Australian developers and bankers who came to Toronto this week to check out business opportunities, especially those on the waterfront.
The tour lasted just a few days, but it was clear the visitors from Down Under liked what they saw.
"Toronto has a fantastic waterfront asset," says John Tabart, CEO of VicUrban, the Melbourne equivalent of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. "There's community support and there appears to be political will. I think it's time for Toronto to do something."
So do a lot of Torontonians, but perhaps Tabart's comment about political will is somewhat premature.
On the matter of waterfront redevelopment, the public seems years ahead of the politicians, as it does on environmental issues.
On the other hand, Tabart does have some advice for Toronto.
"Quality is key," he insists, "and quality isn't about price. It means high design, sustainability, a clear vision and regulatory clarity."
Tabart also warns that Toronto will have to decide what to do with the Gardiner Expressway before the waterfront can be fully redeveloped. In Melbourne, despite initial reluctance, the local version of the Gardiner was torn down. It was replaced by a toll highway, which also covered the cost of demolition.
"You have to deal with traffic," Tabart argues. "You'll need some solution; if you don't find it, waterfront redevelopment will be difficult."
Also hard, he says, was maintaining a sense of public ownership of the Melbourne docklands.
"We decided it was to be a place for everybody, not just those well-heeled enough to afford a waterfront condo," Tabart says. "All building was set back a minimum of 30 metres from the water's edge to ensure public access."
Then there's the nasty little issue of money — specifically, who will pay for the development?
As Tabart makes clear, the answer is both private and public sectors. In Melbourne, government takes care of the infrastructure, up to the edge of a site sold or leased to private interests. The developer takes care of the infrastructure inside those boundaries.
"We have performance standards that developers have to meet," Tabart explains.
He also suggests the Toronto redevelopment authority would be better advised to rely on contract law rather than land use regulations. This is an important point in Toronto, where the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation is still waiting to hear what powers it will be given by government.
The point is that even without having the power to change planning rules and so on, the corporation can draw up individual contracts with developers. Tabart, who has been with VicUrban for 10 years, also emphasizes the need for a success story early in the process. It could be anything from an office tower (public or private), a condo or a retail complex. The crucial factor, he says, is to build something that will convince the larger community of the viability of the revitalization program. Then there's the ongoing pressure to ensure the redeveloped waterfront remains a place people feel welcome. This is worth keeping in mind in Toronto, where the very idea of the public realm has been eroded and municipal politicians are willing, even anxious, to hand over civic assets to private interests.
"This city has the earmarks of being a good investment market," says Martin Standford, a member of the Australian delegation and director of development at ING Real Estate.
"Toronto is a fabulous city. There's a ton of investment opportunity on the waterfront. It's got a lot of appeal. But developers need certainty about the infrastructure, transit, sewers and that sort of thing.
"Toronto also has to go up against cities like Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Washington, so there's lots of competition."
Besides, he adds, "it's so easy to get it wrong."
rt_0891 is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote
CHRISTOPHER HUME
Like Toronto, Melbourne has a waterfront. Unlike Toronto, Melbourne began rebuilding its waterfront a decade ago.
The work is still 20 years from completion, but money — $3.5 billion — has been spent and the process started.
Here, of course, we haven't reached that point quite yet.
But Toronto's tardiness was good news to a delegation of Australian developers and bankers who came to Toronto this week to check out business opportunities, especially those on the waterfront.
The tour lasted just a few days, but it was clear the visitors from Down Under liked what they saw.
"Toronto has a fantastic waterfront asset," says John Tabart, CEO of VicUrban, the Melbourne equivalent of the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. "There's community support and there appears to be political will. I think it's time for Toronto to do something."
So do a lot of Torontonians, but perhaps Tabart's comment about political will is somewhat premature.
On the matter of waterfront redevelopment, the public seems years ahead of the politicians, as it does on environmental issues.
On the other hand, Tabart does have some advice for Toronto.
"Quality is key," he insists, "and quality isn't about price. It means high design, sustainability, a clear vision and regulatory clarity."
Tabart also warns that Toronto will have to decide what to do with the Gardiner Expressway before the waterfront can be fully redeveloped. In Melbourne, despite initial reluctance, the local version of the Gardiner was torn down. It was replaced by a toll highway, which also covered the cost of demolition.
"You have to deal with traffic," Tabart argues. "You'll need some solution; if you don't find it, waterfront redevelopment will be difficult."
Also hard, he says, was maintaining a sense of public ownership of the Melbourne docklands.
"We decided it was to be a place for everybody, not just those well-heeled enough to afford a waterfront condo," Tabart says. "All building was set back a minimum of 30 metres from the water's edge to ensure public access."
Then there's the nasty little issue of money — specifically, who will pay for the development?
As Tabart makes clear, the answer is both private and public sectors. In Melbourne, government takes care of the infrastructure, up to the edge of a site sold or leased to private interests. The developer takes care of the infrastructure inside those boundaries.
"We have performance standards that developers have to meet," Tabart explains.
He also suggests the Toronto redevelopment authority would be better advised to rely on contract law rather than land use regulations. This is an important point in Toronto, where the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation is still waiting to hear what powers it will be given by government.
The point is that even without having the power to change planning rules and so on, the corporation can draw up individual contracts with developers. Tabart, who has been with VicUrban for 10 years, also emphasizes the need for a success story early in the process. It could be anything from an office tower (public or private), a condo or a retail complex. The crucial factor, he says, is to build something that will convince the larger community of the viability of the revitalization program. Then there's the ongoing pressure to ensure the redeveloped waterfront remains a place people feel welcome. This is worth keeping in mind in Toronto, where the very idea of the public realm has been eroded and municipal politicians are willing, even anxious, to hand over civic assets to private interests.
"This city has the earmarks of being a good investment market," says Martin Standford, a member of the Australian delegation and director of development at ING Real Estate.
"Toronto is a fabulous city. There's a ton of investment opportunity on the waterfront. It's got a lot of appeal. But developers need certainty about the infrastructure, transit, sewers and that sort of thing.
"Toronto also has to go up against cities like Los Angeles, New York, Boston and Washington, so there's lots of competition."
Besides, he adds, "it's so easy to get it wrong."
rt_0891 is offline Report Bad Post Reply With Quote