Skip to main content

The Don Valley Parkway leading to the Port Lands area in Toronto.

Michelle Siu / Globe and Mail

A highly anticipated report on ways to speed up development in Toronto's Port Lands and create parkland at the mouth of the Don River won't be ready until September, raising the possibility a waterfront casino will influence those plans.

City staff and Waterfront Toronto were expected to deliver their findings next month to Mayor Rob Ford's executive committee, including recommendations on how to develop the vast stretch of waterfront on the city's eastern inner harbour and the best way to pay for it.

The report also will provide alternatives for naturalizing the mouth of the Don River that would leave more room for development and cost less than the $634-million price tag of the original, award-winning plan.

Story continues below advertisement

Instead, staff confirmed late Wednesday they need a summer extension to finalize their business plan and have those numbers vetted by an outside expert, as requested last fall by city councillors. Their findings will go to the executive committee in September and council in October.

"We were just running out of time to do a proper job," deputy city manager John Livey said. "It is a complicated, large area. We had to do consultations with the community. There are some very technical issues that have to be resolved around the design of the naturalization of the river course. It takes time."

Saving time is what the study is all about – the result of a council compromise last fall after Councillor Doug Ford failed in his efforts to have the city take control of developing the mostly derelict land from Waterfront Toronto. Mr. Ford was frustrated with the agency's lengthy development timeline, arguing the site was an overlooked city treasure. He presented an alternative plan for development that included a megamall, monorail and Ferris wheel.

Reached Wednesday, Mr. Ford would not discuss the report – or the potential for a waterfront casino on the Port Lands. Asked about the delay of a report meant to speed up development, his response was: "I'd rather do it right."

Councillor Paula Fletcher, who represents an east-end ward that includes the Port Lands, said she will be asking staff to make an interim report of their findings to the July council meeting.

Ontario's lottery corporation pinpointed the Toronto waterfront including the Port Lands as one of four potential sites for a new casino in the GTA. Against that backdrop, Ms. Fletcher said she is fearful that the delay will give big-name casino operators and major developers an extra three months of "heavy lobbying" for a Port Lands casino.

"I think the public may well perceive that some of this work may be derailed," Ms. Fletcher said. "Ferris wheels, monorails, megamalls – people felt very strongly about that. I don't think the casino added in is going to fly."

Story continues below advertisement

Mr. Livey dismissed any suggestion that the possibility of a casino development was a factor in the delay. "We have not been concerning ourselves with the casino," he said.

Alternate designs for the mouth of the Don River, estimated to save between $100-million and $150-million, are expected to include a more narrow riverside park and a green space that will act as a spillway to carry overflow from the river to the shipping channel to the south.

Mr. Livey said the preliminary designs released in March have been modified to reflect the suggestions made at public meetings and by two stakeholder groups. A final public meeting on the report will be held Thursday night.

John Wilson, a long-time Don River advocate and a member of the groups consulted as part of the study, said even with revisions, plans for the river mouth lack detail and would cut green space by about 20 per cent. "It is hard to say what the revitalization would look like," he said. "There are still a lot of questions to be answered."

Report an error Editorial code of conduct
Comments

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • All comments will be reviewed by one or more moderators before being posted to the site. This should only take a few moments.
  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed. Commenters who repeatedly violate community guidelines may be suspended, causing them to temporarily lose their ability to engage with comments.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.
Cannabis pro newsletter