What are the particularities of redeveloping these industrial lands?

The ‘Queen Street West Triangle’ consists of what was formerly railway-related industrial lands. The shape and size of their lots are often typical of industrial development of the time. Their shape was often determined by the original function of the building or railway spurs. Indeed, the lots had more to do with the railway than they did with the rest of the city. They did not have to relate to, or integrate, into the surrounding pattern of streets to the extent other land uses did. They were set apart from the more conventional city.

Today this type of 19th Century industrial development often has difficulty to integrating into the regular pattern of streets and buildings. Conventional buildings are not easily developed in odd-shaped lots because they are not evenly accessible from the public realm; in this case, Queen Street. A lot of residual space can end up being unused and wasted at a time when there is scarcity of land to develop in the first place. As is the case in the Queen West Triangle Lands, a planning exercise needs to be done, which encompasses the whole area and coordinates future development in a way that satisfies the community’s concerns, broader municipal policies and the interests of the land owners alike. The municipality has already begun work on such an exercise as it is a requirement of the Official Plan.

Developers of this type of land may face higher development expenses than usual because they normally have to plan and build new roads and services like sewers and fresh water supply. Some of this land may be polluted after a century of industrial use, which again adds to development costs. Obviously the price paid for a piece of land should reflect these conditions. The contribution to local schools, parks, community centers and a share of affordable housing is expected to be similar to that of other development elsewhere in the city.

Because expenses add up developers often seek permission to build larger buildings than those in the immediate surroundings to offset these costs and the risks involved, especially if they paid too much for the land. Their only solution then is to make their profit (or prevent losses) at the expense of the values expressed in the Official Plan and other regulatory documents.

On one hand, the public cannot be responsible for land purchase decisions that prove wrong and sacrifice the urban environment to offset potential losses. On the other hand, there has to be a meeting point where the inherent risks of developing industrial lands, with unforeseeable costs, is made reasonably possible so the neighbourhood, and the city at large, can benefit from new development and move forward toward optimal city building. Thus in every situation a reasonable compromise should be determined. The onus should be on the developer to demonstrate this.