As a revised plan for the revitalization of Toronto’s Port Lands goes before the city’s executive committee Monday, a local concrete maker is sounding the alarm on a proposal it says neglects the area’s industrial reality.

In a letter sent to Mayor Rob Ford and Waterfront Toronto president John Campbell on Friday, Lafarge Canada Inc. criticized the latest Port Lands redevelopment proposal for failing to fully consider the company’s long-term plans to remain in the area.

“As a landowner and long-time industrial steward at the Port, Lafarge intends to remain at our current location and any redevelopment must reflect this,” wrote Gurinder Girn, vice president and general manager of Lafarge Canada. “Our view is the recently released Plan does not achieve this and many questions still remain unaddressed.”

About a month ago, Waterfront Toronto and city officials unveiled another version of a 30-year revitalization plan for the 400-hectare site, the revision prompted last year by complaints from the Toronto Port Authority and businesses in the area that their needs had not been considered.

Concerns over the original proposal included plans to demolish dock walls needed for shipping and build a promontory on the new mouth of the Don River that could impede harbour traffic. The original plan also called for a park on Lafarge-owned land.

Sent back to New York landscape architect Michael Van Valkenburgh for revisions, the latest Port Lands revitalization plan incorporates both industrial use and the original vision of naturalized, mixed-use neighbourhoods in the area.

Councillor Paula Fletcher, whose ward includes the Port Lands, called the revised plan “pretty darn good” when it was unveiled in early August.

Lafarge, however, seems to think otherwise.

In his letter, Girn said the concrete maker still has “serious questions and concerns” about whether the revitalization plan recognizes the company’s plan to continue its operations in the long term, as “we have no intention of closing our terminal.”

He said Lafarge was encouraged by “incremental changes” in the new design, but that his company was still concerned about road access to the plant, water access for incoming shipments and land use plans around the plant that could affect the company’s future.

The letter noted that Lafarge transports about 400,000 tonnes of cement via the Port of Toronto on an annual basis. If Lafarge were forced by economic or political forces to leave its waterfront location, it said, the company would have to put 40,000 trucks on the roads to transport cement into Toronto.

“Torontonians consume large quantities of cement,” the letter said. “To reduce the environmental impact of cement, we must minimize the movement of our product.”

Waterfront Toronto spokeswoman Michelle Noble said the revitalization plan accommodates Lafarge’s plans to stay at the port in the long term, but added that “eventually, industrial users may decide to leave” and “we have to plan knowing that someday it will happen.”

Noble also said that she found the concerns outlined in letter “curious,” given that consultation process has already been completed and that Lafarge had participated in a land user’s committee meeting where stakeholders were encouraged to air their concerns.

“We’ve already put forward our report,” she said.

Michael Williams, general manager of economic development and culture at the City of Toronto, said “the plan shouldn’t been seen as a threat to (Lafarge’s) existence.”

“I think we can accommodate them; they own their land and they’re an important player,” said Williams. “We’re going to sit down and talk to them.”

Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading... Loading...

Fletcher said she would take LaFarge’s concerns forward. “I’m happy to tell Lafarge that yes, we’re listening, and you’re not going to wake up and find Lafarge Park at the end of this exercise,” she said. “There’s been a lot of mistrust … we need to build trust among all the people that are concerned.”

The revised Port Lands plan was approved unanimously by the executive committee on Monday. It now goes on to the full city council.

Read more about: