Saturday, May 26, 2012Mostly Cloudy 24°C
City

Does King West offer a good model for Toronto waterfront development?

Posted by Guest Contributor / August 23, 2011

King West CondosDoug Ford isn't a fan of Waterfront Toronto. Calling this municipal, provincial, and federal agency "the biggest boondoggle" ever achieved by the three levels of government, he would rather see the private sector redevelop the area, independent of public resources.

Does he have a point?

Despite the obvious success of recent projects like Sugar Beach and Sherbourne Common Park, a great deal of public spending has been devoted to this revitalization plan. Despite only a portion of the 25-year project being complete, Waterfront Toronto spent $750 Million between 2001 and March 2010.

Is it possible to achieve vibrant, mixed-use development on the waterfront, without the massive public investment?

The transformation of King West in the mid 1990s from an underutilized manufacturing hub to a highly populated, mixed-use community might shed some light on this question. In 1996, the city temporarily rezoned the area for residential use, and after some successful sales of condo units, the change became permanent.

King West CondosSince then, the area has seen its population quadruple, and it has turned into a bustling and prosperous community. Condo units now sell for about $700 per square foot, up from $100 in 1996. No major public investment was required for this transformation.

The evolution of King West might prove a model for development of our waterfront.

What made the area attractive to developers? As a New York Time article notes, its industrial character and proximity to downtown were the main factors. The waterfront shares similar characteristics.

Is it reasonable to expect the same type of private investment for the waterfront revitalization, without the help of public funding?

Jack Diamond, the architect known for designing the Four Seasons Centre for the Performing Arts in Toronto, recently argued in the Globe and Mail that it isn't. The scope of the project is simply too great. And that's not to mention that ensuring that public can enjoy the lakefront should remain a priority as the area is transformed.

In fact, the 800 hectares that Waterfront Toronto aims to revitalize is as large as the area from Bathurst Street to Sherbourne Avenue and Front Street to Bloor Street. According to Waterfront Toronto, it is the largest urban redevelopment project in North America.

Without Waterfront Toronto, we probably will never achieve the vibrant atmosphere on the waterfront that we want. At a smaller scale, however, the organic revitalization of King West shows us that it is possible to transform underutilized industrial land into a vibrant, mixed-use community, without significant public investment.

Writing by Jeremy Korn. Lead photo of King West in the 1980s from the Toronto Archives, second image by greyvdm in the blogTO Flickr pool.

Discussion

28 Comments

Kingshming / August 23, 2011 at 01:18 pm
user-pic
The rebirth of King is also largely thanks to Cossette renovating the shit out of their huge building back in the mid 90's and instantly bringing 600+ employees to the neighbourhood. Instant demand for 600 lunches every day = newly vibrant resto scene.
rick mcginnis / August 23, 2011 at 01:32 pm
user-pic
I had to really concentrate on that photo of King West by Shaw at the top - I remember when the Massey Ferguson plant was still standing on either side of the street, but it's been so long now. The change on that stretch has been total - it's quite amazing.
hendrix / August 23, 2011 at 01:39 pm
user-pic
I don't understand the comparison of the article. The Portlands doesn't have lots of old buildings tightly packed into a grid of streets ready for renovations. It also doesn't have acres of polluted land that needs to be reclaimed. It also isn't on the waterfront, and thus doesn't have the same public space demands.
bob / August 23, 2011 at 01:58 pm
user-pic
you guys feel that earthquake?
Seymour / August 23, 2011 at 02:02 pm
user-pic
The only thing King West is a good example of... is bad city planning.
PrinceRonces / August 23, 2011 at 02:07 pm
user-pic
The investment that private business brought to King West had the wind of a housing boom behind it..
If you want to make the Waterfront another condo concentration, then yes, it's comparable, if you want more places like sugar beach, than it's totally different.
Bob / August 23, 2011 at 02:16 pm
user-pic
Poorly researched article. You can a comparing an area with full infrastructure, jobs and community to an area with nothing except toxic soil.... I would not have put my name on such a poorly thought out post
Jeff / August 23, 2011 at 02:35 pm
user-pic
The mix of employment, residential, and entertainment (restaurants, bars, etc) is wonderful on King West. It's such a vibrant neighbourhood to live in: there are people on the street at all hours of the day.

The bad part is the lack of transit infrastructure... the King streetcars are always full. Yet more condos keep going up: what transit are these going to people going to take? There's no more capacity to handle the new developments.
Underwhelmed / August 23, 2011 at 02:41 pm
user-pic
The comparison of the redevelopment of the Portlands with that of King St. W. is poorly supported and does not provide a useful argument. It might have been more useful to search for areas in other Canadian or American cities that have redeveloped former industrial lands that were contaminated and lacked the kind of infrastructure to support mixed used developments (commercial and residential developments).

This posting is poorly researched and lacks the insight provided by other blogs such as Spacing or Urban Toronto, but the pictures are nice.
mike in parkdale / August 23, 2011 at 02:46 pm
user-pic
Hey, I can see my office in that photo.
Matt / August 23, 2011 at 02:46 pm
user-pic
The area around King West and the Entertainment District has benefitted from already having a street network, lot so pre-existing buildings, a mix of uses, and good local main streets. The waterfront, by contrast, is vacant or industrial land where developers don't have to build around anything else--more like CityPlace.

Meaning, I think CityPlace is a better model of what the east waterfront will look like if left only to private developers. And that would be tragic.
Ed / August 23, 2011 at 03:25 pm
user-pic
The King streetcar is packed, but at least it exists, and existed when the redevelopment of King began. There's nothing on the waterfront, and with the Fords in charge I would not expect the Cherry Street or Queens Quay East streetcars any time soon.

Which is just one aspect of the "you can't compare King West and the east waterfront" point that many people have made. Will these private investors want to remediate the land, reduce the flooding risk for the entire area, rework the mouth of the Don, and put in transit infrastructure....in addition to putting up their green-glass condo towers or the pseudo-Victorian brick veneer stacked townhouses?
Teena / August 23, 2011 at 03:44 pm
user-pic
Wow! That's my 'hood! I didn't even recognize it.
TK replying to a comment from Seymour / August 23, 2011 at 03:49 pm
user-pic
Wow, talk about a pessimist, you must be a really fun person to hang around with. King West is among the top 3 areas to live in Toronto.
Henry / August 23, 2011 at 04:00 pm
user-pic
Do you know where I can get that 1st pic?
Ratpick replying to a comment from TK / August 23, 2011 at 04:42 pm
user-pic
"King West is among the top 3 areas to live in Toronto."

Top 3 for what? I hear the condo forest is a new hotspot for bedbugs...

No, King West is not a good model for waterfront development. CHICAGO is.


jibbly / August 23, 2011 at 05:10 pm
user-pic
If you want to see an example of what letting market forces prevail on the waterfront is all about - take a look at Harbour Square. You know, where you can stand on Queens Quay and not have the foggiest idea that you're anywhere near the water?

WaterfronTO is amazing. From design review, to their people-first mindset... the way they're changing the waterfront is the way we need to be heading.
Antony / August 23, 2011 at 05:14 pm
user-pic
Dumb article. The private sector IS developing the Waterfront Toronto lands.... after the toxic soil is remediated, flood control dikes are added, the transportation network is laid out, public space is set aside, power infrastructure is extended, etc. etc.

Criticizing Waterfront Toronto for spending money to make the land saleable is dumb short term thinking.
ife / August 23, 2011 at 06:34 pm
user-pic
The money used so far is for planning and designing, among other things.
JR / August 23, 2011 at 09:16 pm
user-pic
The $750M budget over a decade doesn't seem that unreasonable. They've built some things, they've planned a ton of things. And (gasp), sometimes the public sector does have to spend money to ensure things are responsibly constructed. For all the amorphous references to "private sector funding" lately, there has been awfully little explanation of who exactly in the private sector would be rushing this funding forward. In this case, it would be condo developers, with parks as a glorified condo amenity provided to gain some Section 37 variances.
Jordan / August 23, 2011 at 10:18 pm
user-pic
Is Rob Ford writing articles for BlogTo now? Jesus - do some real research before publishing an article like this. Most of the money that has gone into the waterfront so far has been in remediating the existing toxic land as well as building up the land around the Don River to prevent the east bayfront from flooding.

As well, King-West is a pretty terrible community to emulate. The area has nearly no parks or public spaces to name - except perhaps victory square - no community centres, not even a grocery store. It's a community made for the wealthy ... could you imagine taking your kids to Brassaii?

private jets / August 24, 2011 at 01:19 am
user-pic
Sounds quite interesting to me. I think its good to see some private investment whether through funding or my some corporate sector is better then taking all from public sector which is always short of money when asked for development or for similar work. Thanks for posting and sharing such nice information with us.
efi / August 24, 2011 at 03:44 am
user-pic
holy shit King West is beautiful
Ben S / August 24, 2011 at 07:46 am
user-pic
Huh? The private industry already tried their hand at developing the waterfront, and it was awful. Developers have no desire to build communities, especially in this real estate market. They just pop up condos and move on the to next one.

I love what the city is doing with Waterfront Toronto. $750m is nothing for the long term benefit of a new neighbourhood that's generating tax dollars and jobs.
lowrez / August 24, 2011 at 11:36 am
user-pic
Poorly researched article.
Ashley Tewat / August 24, 2011 at 02:35 pm
user-pic
"Boondoggle" Is not a real word... Are we seriously trusting these uneducated farm boys with our city's future?
the lemur replying to a comment from Ashley Tewat / August 24, 2011 at 03:24 pm
user-pic
'Boondoggle' IS a real word.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/boondoggle
tinsneby / February 14, 2012 at 12:54 am
user-pic
check this link, chanel purses suprisely

Add a Comment

Other Cities: VancouverMontreal