UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I've got a bad feeling that it's unlikely going to work out that way.
Toronto Ontario Place | ?m | ?s | Infrastructure ON
- Thread starter vistaway
- Start date
GenerationLee
Senior Member
I forgot to post these images I took yesterday. I walked along Trillium Park before realizing most of the trail is closed off for construction. It was one annoying walk around. Anyways, here.
kotsy
Senior Member
I can't believe how rusty they have let this structure and the two bridges over Lakeshore get. It's embarrassing.
Towered
Senior Member
Shabby Toronto.
pw20
Active Member
I personally think what's so fascinating about this particular situation is that we have a giant plot of government owned land in the centre of the city. There is both a housing crisis, AND a public space challenge. It appears (in my opinion) that government has made a decision that they perceived would generate some goodwill, (it's a public-private partner! and you'll still get x number of park!) at what they perceived would be the lowest cost but doesn't actually solve either of the two problems. I just can't imagine another city with acres of land owned by the government in the middle of downtown and the best land-use is a glorified indoor water-park (and yes, I get that people go to great-wolf lodge, and waterparks are fun, etc). But fundamentally I still think the barometer of whether therme is good or not should answer the ultimate question - is this the best usage of land for Toronto and it's citizens? SPOILER ALERT: my answer is no.
picard102
Senior Member
You care apparently. The province isn't divesting anything. You know that as you acknowledge it's leased, not sold.
Then this is it. Ontario place as is is not profitable.
picard102
Senior Member
Ontario Place lost money from the day it opened. So maybe.
Northern Light
Superstar
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
This statement is either naive or an attempt at obfuscation. It will be theirs until long after every single person currently on this forum is dead; the current buildings are only 50 years old and this is almost twice that term. It's a LONG time.
And it's not like once they're done, they're taking the building away and restoring the present condition. It is a permanent change. PERIOD.
The longer this goes, the more you're embarassing yourself, respectfully.
So what? Neither is Canada Post. Neither are our hospitals. I haven't looked at the books of Ontario Parks but I woudln't be surprised if they don't make money either.
But as you seem to enjoy pointing out, the park wasn't profitable back in the day.
So is that our crtieria for a succesful use of the site? Does Therme's terrible proposal become more palatable if they make money or more terrible if they don't?
Given a choice between "appropriate" and "profitable," I'd take the former but of course reality is more complicated. But even you aren't going to sit here and guarantee Therme will be proftiable (either for them or us, as taxpayers). So, yeah, I'd rather have something that's at least good, then.
(Still LOLing at "isn't divesting anything" over here Wanna not-divest your house to me for 95 years, give or take?)
picard102
Senior Member
No one is saying they would. Nor should it. PERIOD.
Feel free to stop replying anytime.
A theme park that doesn't generate money is what got us here. So yes, being able to turn a profit to keep the doors open is a positive.
Good is subjective. A water park replacing a water park is a net neutral imo.
Sure. Draw up the paperwork.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...I'll also like to say I know when somethings a bad deal when the apologetics of it is flowing thick as a Rudy Giuliani press conference. So I'll just shut up now, and hope I won't be watching a 99 year horror show that spirals out of control.
In the meantime, I can least take some solace that my personal good memories of the place will never become corrupted.
In the meantime, I can least take some solace that my personal good memories of the place will never become corrupted.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
If you lease an apartment, a car or anything else there are stipulations about the condition in which it's returned. Usually, you're not allowed to knock out walls, add a spoiler to the car or, you know, anything else that will significantly change the appearance or function.
You make it sound like they're just borrowing the site so it's no big deal but given the nature of his particular lease, if you're going to argue there is significance ot the government not-selling the land, it's pretty weak.
Almost there, thanks.
It wasn't really a theme park; which, quite arguably, was a large part of the problem. It kind of half-heartedly tried to be one but it wasn't really any one thing. You know what else it wasn't...?
That's right! It also wasn't a water park! Yes, it had a small one, it's true but then it also wasn't a food court (though it had eateries) and it also wasn't a science museum (though it had a Nintendo pod and a 'future pod' thing for a while) or an amusement park (though it had one flume ride and some bumper boats).
My attorney will be in touch. Contact info below if you don't hear by the end of the week.
picard102
Senior Member
JohnnyRaylander
New Member
Not all public land is always publicly accessible, correct. You're missing some of the obvious objections to transferring prime public land.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Nonsense!. CFB Trenton and Parliament Hill are public land and we can all go to either whenever we want.
If Justin Trudeau wants to let Madame Tussaud open a wax museum at the gates and start charging admission at either location, both will be still basically be publicly accesssible the same way they are now, materially speaking.
"Public" and "accessible" mean, you know, whatever.