D
dan e 1980
Guest
what happened?
|
|
|
what happened?
S
SD2
Guest
Don't forget the piano!
D
dan e 1980
Guest
so it's patronage?
rob ford actually tried to do something good? :eek
would a new mayor kill the contract?
rob ford actually tried to do something good? :eek
would a new mayor kill the contract?
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Star: Union Station Deal Officially Dead
From the Star:
Deal falls off the rails
Crumbling Union Station in need of repair, upgrade $100 million consortium deal falls apart
Paul Moloney
Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Jun 8, 2006. pg. R.06
Copyright (c) 2006 Toronto Star, All Rights Reserved.
It was to have been the day for Mayor David Miller to host a splashy ceremony celebrating a new beginning for Union Station.
Instead, last Thursday was just another day of benign neglect for the venerable transportation hub. It still needs $26 million in immediate work to bring it to a state of good repair. And it's still waiting for an experienced operator to take it over.
That operator was to have been Union Pearson Group, a consortium of high-profile companies that had proposed to invest at least $100 million to transform the crumbling edifice into a showpiece that would include retail and entertainment, as well as transportation uses.
UPG was to have leased the structure from the city for up to 100 years, but a month ago, the consortium announced that after four years of talks with the city, time had run out to complete the deal.
Now, the only certainty is that Union Station won't be renovated anytime soon. And the city, which acquired the building in 2000, must decide where to go from here.
"I think it's a great loss to Toronto," said Councillor Doug Holyday, a key backer of the deal. "A restored Union Station would be a great asset for the city, and badly needed. Other cities have been able to take their old stations and refurbish them. That's what we need to do."
The city's options include
Try to find a new partner to lease and renovate the whole station.
Offer to lease out parts of the station to the private sector.
Go it alone, in which the city would carry out renovations.
Do nothing.
In an interview, Miller said staff would report in July on possible directions.
He said the collapse of the deal with UPG isn't a total loss because the city has gained a lot of knowledge about what the station needs.
"It's very unfortunate that all the effort with UPG hasn't worked out. There was good faith on both sides. But it has laid the groundwork for us to move forward," Miller said.
The mayor stressed there are separate projects going on to improve the functioning of the hub, including the recent announcement to add a subway platform at Union Station. There are also plans for a new south entrance opening on to the planned Maple Leaf Square.
But he conceded the dream of a redeveloped, vibrant station would take longer to achieve.
Holyday believes it's unlikely the city can find a new private sector partner.
Chicago-based LP Heritage + Union Station Consortium, which lost out to UPG, is now suing the city, claiming an unfair and flawed selection process.
The group's Toronto lawyer, Alan D'Silva, said it's premature to say whether his clients would be interested in making a new bid.
"I couldn't answer because it's purely hypothetical," D'Silva said.
Prior to the public announcement that UPG was out, Toronto Maple Leafs co-owner Larry Tanenbaum, whose company is a member of the consortium, delivered the bad news in a brief meeting in Miller's office.
Tanenbaum isn't talking publicly about the reasons. His office referred the Toronto Star to UPG project manager Ron Taylor, who didn't return phone calls.
Holyday, meanwhile, said the city has to shoulder the blame.
"This whole thing has played out badly and it isn't UPG's fault," Holyday said. "There's nothing they've done that you could point the finger at them. Council has batted this thing around from pillar to post."
When the deal collapsed, Taylor said at the time that UPG's financiers needed 30 to 45 days to review the city's lease arrangements with key Union Station tenants GO Transit and VIA Rail, but the documents simply didn't arrive in time.
The consortium indicated they couldn't meet the city's May 31 deadline.
And UPG wanted to know the makeup of the board of directors that would oversee the operation of the station, but that too wasn't available.
These were legitimate beefs, said Holyday, who was involved in the talks as chair of council's administration committee.
"UPG required some things in a timely manner so they could review them and deal with their own financiers, and they just didn't get them. The contracts from GO and VIA, they had to have them weeks in advance.
"And the matter of governance could have a bearing on how they operated and who they had to deal with."
Yet some councillors believe the failure of the UPG deal is a blessing in disguise.
If the city remains in control, it would have more flexibility in future to accommodate changes in transportation patterns, said Councillor Sylvia Watson, who chairs the administration committee.
"You wouldn't be sitting there at the mercy of someone who was the lessee," Watson said.
Miller said there are many ways to redevelop the station.
"You could partner with other public entities, the city could hire a manager of the retail space, you could have a private partner for some things and a private partner for other things," he said.
Holyday, however, said any model that leaves the city in charge would be a recipe for trouble. "Train stations aren't our business," Holyday said.
"What experience do we have running a train station? None."
_________________________________________________
The city can establish an arms length, non-profit corporation to oversee the redevelopment of the station, such that all the profits are worked back into the project. The UPG scheme doesn't allow that, providing nothing but a token rent for the city, while ignoring (and worse, limiting) the future uses of the station.
AoD
From the Star:
Deal falls off the rails
Crumbling Union Station in need of repair, upgrade $100 million consortium deal falls apart
Paul Moloney
Toronto Star. Toronto, Ont.: Jun 8, 2006. pg. R.06
Copyright (c) 2006 Toronto Star, All Rights Reserved.
It was to have been the day for Mayor David Miller to host a splashy ceremony celebrating a new beginning for Union Station.
Instead, last Thursday was just another day of benign neglect for the venerable transportation hub. It still needs $26 million in immediate work to bring it to a state of good repair. And it's still waiting for an experienced operator to take it over.
That operator was to have been Union Pearson Group, a consortium of high-profile companies that had proposed to invest at least $100 million to transform the crumbling edifice into a showpiece that would include retail and entertainment, as well as transportation uses.
UPG was to have leased the structure from the city for up to 100 years, but a month ago, the consortium announced that after four years of talks with the city, time had run out to complete the deal.
Now, the only certainty is that Union Station won't be renovated anytime soon. And the city, which acquired the building in 2000, must decide where to go from here.
"I think it's a great loss to Toronto," said Councillor Doug Holyday, a key backer of the deal. "A restored Union Station would be a great asset for the city, and badly needed. Other cities have been able to take their old stations and refurbish them. That's what we need to do."
The city's options include
Try to find a new partner to lease and renovate the whole station.
Offer to lease out parts of the station to the private sector.
Go it alone, in which the city would carry out renovations.
Do nothing.
In an interview, Miller said staff would report in July on possible directions.
He said the collapse of the deal with UPG isn't a total loss because the city has gained a lot of knowledge about what the station needs.
"It's very unfortunate that all the effort with UPG hasn't worked out. There was good faith on both sides. But it has laid the groundwork for us to move forward," Miller said.
The mayor stressed there are separate projects going on to improve the functioning of the hub, including the recent announcement to add a subway platform at Union Station. There are also plans for a new south entrance opening on to the planned Maple Leaf Square.
But he conceded the dream of a redeveloped, vibrant station would take longer to achieve.
Holyday believes it's unlikely the city can find a new private sector partner.
Chicago-based LP Heritage + Union Station Consortium, which lost out to UPG, is now suing the city, claiming an unfair and flawed selection process.
The group's Toronto lawyer, Alan D'Silva, said it's premature to say whether his clients would be interested in making a new bid.
"I couldn't answer because it's purely hypothetical," D'Silva said.
Prior to the public announcement that UPG was out, Toronto Maple Leafs co-owner Larry Tanenbaum, whose company is a member of the consortium, delivered the bad news in a brief meeting in Miller's office.
Tanenbaum isn't talking publicly about the reasons. His office referred the Toronto Star to UPG project manager Ron Taylor, who didn't return phone calls.
Holyday, meanwhile, said the city has to shoulder the blame.
"This whole thing has played out badly and it isn't UPG's fault," Holyday said. "There's nothing they've done that you could point the finger at them. Council has batted this thing around from pillar to post."
When the deal collapsed, Taylor said at the time that UPG's financiers needed 30 to 45 days to review the city's lease arrangements with key Union Station tenants GO Transit and VIA Rail, but the documents simply didn't arrive in time.
The consortium indicated they couldn't meet the city's May 31 deadline.
And UPG wanted to know the makeup of the board of directors that would oversee the operation of the station, but that too wasn't available.
These were legitimate beefs, said Holyday, who was involved in the talks as chair of council's administration committee.
"UPG required some things in a timely manner so they could review them and deal with their own financiers, and they just didn't get them. The contracts from GO and VIA, they had to have them weeks in advance.
"And the matter of governance could have a bearing on how they operated and who they had to deal with."
Yet some councillors believe the failure of the UPG deal is a blessing in disguise.
If the city remains in control, it would have more flexibility in future to accommodate changes in transportation patterns, said Councillor Sylvia Watson, who chairs the administration committee.
"You wouldn't be sitting there at the mercy of someone who was the lessee," Watson said.
Miller said there are many ways to redevelop the station.
"You could partner with other public entities, the city could hire a manager of the retail space, you could have a private partner for some things and a private partner for other things," he said.
Holyday, however, said any model that leaves the city in charge would be a recipe for trouble. "Train stations aren't our business," Holyday said.
"What experience do we have running a train station? None."
_________________________________________________
The city can establish an arms length, non-profit corporation to oversee the redevelopment of the station, such that all the profits are worked back into the project. The UPG scheme doesn't allow that, providing nothing but a token rent for the city, while ignoring (and worse, limiting) the future uses of the station.
AoD
G
GregWTravels
Guest
What kind of reasoning is that? You run an entire CITY! You run parks and police and transit. You can't find people to run a train station?
Gawd.
U
unimaginative2
Guest
Honestly, what experience does Lavalin et al have running a train station?
E
EnviroTO
Guest
Doug P Holyday Inn's middle name is privatization.
I agree. I don't get why a city can't manage Union Station. Sure the city can manage 69 subway and RT stations some of which have vendors, all the city's permits, 99 libraries, a bunch of fire stations and police stations, etc, etc. There are so many people who are half baked on council. How did it get so bad?
I agree. I don't get why a city can't manage Union Station. Sure the city can manage 69 subway and RT stations some of which have vendors, all the city's permits, 99 libraries, a bunch of fire stations and police stations, etc, etc. There are so many people who are half baked on council. How did it get so bad?
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
Union Pearson Group Termination Report
From the City of Toronto Policy and Finance Committee:
www.toronto.ca/legdocs/20.../it014.pdf
Excellent summary of the activities over the past few years, and future options.
AoD
From the City of Toronto Policy and Finance Committee:
www.toronto.ca/legdocs/20.../it014.pdf
Excellent summary of the activities over the past few years, and future options.
AoD
U
unimaginative2
Guest
Why not use the same approach as airports? Charging, say, 10 cents as a surcharge on every GO ticket and a dollar on every VIA ticket, would raise millions of dollars every year to pay off renovation-related debt.
C
cdl42
Guest
unimaginative,
I've often wondered the same thing.
I've often wondered the same thing.
S
SD2
Guest
That sounds like a common sense solution...probably the reason it hasn't been considered.
A
andreapalladio
Guest
I like that idea a lot because I never take Go or Via.
R
rbtaylor
Guest
Why not just steal Union Pearsons business plan and implement it ourselves?
Set up a not-for-profit to be responsible for the development, watched by TEDCO, and give them $100M loan (issue bonds?) to be paid back over 40 years at a nominal interest rate.
Let the not-for-profit build out the teamways and lease the space to restaurants and the like. The number of people in the area certainly isn't shrinking any time soon, nor is the foot traffic through the day.
A
alklay
Guest
That is a great idea. I am not sure why the city cannot do it (or at least set up a corporation to carry it out. One must be careful not to set up an agency like the GTAA which could run wild without any oversight or city control).