The outcry over the City Council’s approval to allow the Toronto Parking Authority to expropriate the Matador so that they can turn it into a parking lot seems to have finally gotten to the ward councillor Adam Giambrone. In an email sent today to those who have contacted him about the issue, Giambrone had this to say:
Given the concerns that have been expressed about using the site for parking, I am working to determine what else might be possible at this location, and will be happy to update you as things develop. I have contacted the TPA and the owners of the Matador to find out the facts and to see what opportunities exist for a compromise or for other alternatives. I have also contacted the City’s Heritage Division to ask them to assess whether the Matador qualifies for heritage protection under the Ontario Heritage Act. I would be happy to support an alternative to the TPA’s proposal if it were viable and appropriate for the site.
In addition to a few other points made to ensure everyone is on the same page, the councillor also wrote this:
City Council has unanimously authorized the TPA to begin the expropriation process if they are unable to reach an agreement with the owners of the Matador. That does not mean the property is being expropriated; it simply means that the TPA can begin the expropriation process if necessary. It also does not rule out a willingly negotiated sale, or prevent other sales of the property for other uses.
To date, I am not aware of any parties other than the TPA that have an expressed an interest in acquiring the Matador. If members of the community know of any organizations or individuals who might be interested in purchasing the property for a use that will be of greater community benefit than the TPA’s proposed parking lot, please encourage them to contact my office, or the owners of the Matador directly, as soon as possible.
In the meantime, I will continue to work on finding a solution to this issue and I will provide the community with regular updates as more information becomes available.
Thanks to Joanna Zuk for the update.
16 comments
Haven’t I heard the mayor call the TPA “a rogue agency” and vowing to get it under control?
Adam, your support of the plan was disheartening, but at least you’re slowly seeing common sense!
This really makes me wonder about Giambrone. I used to have faith he’d make the right decision even without community pressure. What was going on here? I have a hard time believing he’s that out to lunch that this new email from him is to believe as some new revelation he’s had. He should know this from the beginning. This is such a severe dissapointment.
Isn’t Hamish thinking about the other TPA? (Port vs. Parking)
When will local politicians get the point that people don’t want to see ANYTHING torn down to create a parking lot. Rip down the Matador if you must, but give us a park in it’s place. Or, leave the Matador where it is and protect it as a unique part of Toronto’s recent history. Someone will see the value in the location and give the current owners a fair deal.
I really don’t understand why the City has to do anything about the building. It’s not as if they normally interfere when a building is vacated by it’s tenants. Someone will think of a new use for the building and life will go on – that’s how the property market works!
The real problem here is that the TPA seems to have a mandate to create more surface parking, when it should clearly be doing the opposite. Unfortunately, the organization is run like a business (i.e., expansion is good) and city council seems to like it that way because the authority is a cash cow. What could be a good policy tool is just another wasted opportunity.
Nothing has changed, the expropriation process is still going forward. Until council reverses its decision and suspends the authority of the TPA to expropriate the property it is business as usual.
Negotiating with the threat of expropriation is extortion pure and simple. No second party will come forward to buy and restore the building when the building is under threat of expropriation.
Would anybody here buy something that could be taken away tomorrow?
Take away the threat of expropriation and only then can we have a real conversation about the future of the Matador.
Council unanimously approved the expropriation and only they can fix their egregious error. Demand that they do.
http://www.savethematador.com
“Savethematador.com” is run by Giambrone’s opponent in the last municipal election, BTW… I smell opportunism.
I think people are massively overreacting to this. The Matador is a junky building that the owners want to sell. Off-street parking is better than on-street parking, and a lot in this location will help the community make better use of a resource (the YMCA).
Blarg, I think you are mistaken in saying that people need parking in order to make better use of the YMCA.
We shouldn’t be encouraging people to use their cars by building more parking. Also, parking lots are unhealthy things; they hurt neighbourhoods by creating dead gaps of space, and they hurt the environment by creating water runoff and producing heat.
I think the community would be better helped if someone opened up a grocery store there (or any other number of services).
It certainly sounds as if the Toronto Parking Authority has lost sight of the fact that it is an agency of the city, and NOT a private business. This is a good example of how the profit motive can obliterate all other concerns and cause people to push for things that are totally opposite to the interests of the city as a whole, not to mention its Official Plan. I agree with Chris Hume and others: the LAST thing this city needs is to tear down buildings to create parking. It’s absolutley ridiculous.
Humm… that got cut off. The rest of it said:
Perhaps he ran for council for the same reason he is trying to stop the Matador for being expropriated and turned into a parking lot: he is a concerned citizen who cares about his ‘hood.
To smear the thousands of people who have stepped up to help stop this travesty like this is pretty low.
I’m not from Toronto so it seems so weird to me that a big city like Toronto would be trying to create more parking (especially surface parking replacing a building) in this day and age. Here in Montreal, there is official policy to REDUCE parking spaces, especially downtown. I often see lots of empty lots around the city that could be used as parking spaces but are instead fenced off because I imagine the city doesn’t allow them to convert it to parking.
It may be disturbing, but it’s a major source of revenue for the city.
During Jane Jacobs Day, I joined the Kensington walk led by Adam Vaughn. The first thing he did was to take us to the huge parking lot in Kensington Market. He asked us for suggestions on what better uses we could come up with for the space. When we were done, he asked us how much revenue our schemes would generate for the city. He pointed out that as cash-strapped as our city is, the parking lots (and parking spaces and tickets) are a huge source of revenue for the city.
So any scheme that really threatens to put bicycles and pedestrians ahead of cars in Toronto is going to be blocked by the city. They’ll do token bike lanes (less than 3 km for 2007). They’ll make grandiose statements. But they will do whatever they can to undermine bike lanes or heritage buildings or anything else that threatens their remarkable revenue stream from parking lots, parking spaces, and parking tickets.
I don’t see any of this changing until Ottawa/Queen’s Park decides the environment is important and compensates the city for car-related revenue. In other words, not in our lifetimes.
Unless of course someone does a study showing the city how much more money they could make by ticketing people driving in bike lanes.
It’s ridiculous using the Y as an excuse to create a few parking spaces. The Y’s membership is well over 6000 people … a few spots won’t make any noticeable difference to that facility. Remember that the TPA had their designs on the Royal Cinema exactly ten years ago. Imagine that stretch of College today if they’d had their way and had replaced the cinema with a parking lot. “Rogue agency” is far too generous a term for that outfit …
The Royal?
I’m all for the TPA making profit from derelict lots — but buying proper urban bits? And the goddamn council voted unanimously for the matador extrpo? Even the ones that ran on the goddamn Jane Jacobs ticket?
Holy disillusionment…batman.
Why did I vote for some of these people — why did i contribute to their campaigns?
Clever what a spin doctor Councillor Giambrone is…he started the process of possible expropriation, and when he saw that he had angered the community, pretended that he had saved the Matador to the TV media…proof? He was able to stop the expropriation by the TPA as quickly as it was started…according to the John Barber article ‘he hadn’t given it a lot of thought’…