Whoaccio
Senior Member
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080912.wport11/BNStory/National/home
We really should have just built a bridge...
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080912.wport11/BNStory/National/home
We really should have just built a bridge...
DavidH
Senior Member
Makes one wonder if the intent is to build a ferry that is just long enough to load the city end and unload the Island end at the same time.
jn_12
Senior Member
that would be one of the things I couldn't mention.
C
Comrad Miller
Guest
I am really look forward to seeing all this infrastructure complete and I look forward to using it when I return to Toronto for good next year and I don't really care what impact the airport has on the squatters - I quite hope the airport makes the rest of the islands uninhabitable.
Screw the Dashes, find a couple Convair 340's, HS748's or Fokker 27's
I can't think of many places in the world that will go so far out of their way to accomodate squatters, with the possible exception of Beserkeley California who put cops on overtime to keep the locals from harassing the bums camping out on campus.
Screw the Dashes, find a couple Convair 340's, HS748's or Fokker 27's
I can't think of many places in the world that will go so far out of their way to accomodate squatters, with the possible exception of Beserkeley California who put cops on overtime to keep the locals from harassing the bums camping out on campus.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
By squatter scum do you mean people with a legal land lease they pay to the city or a legal land lease to the federal government? I really see no difference.
Screw others. Vote Conservative.
C
Comrad Miller
Guest
Whatever "Screw Others" is in Latin is should be the official island resident motto,
The squatters on the island got the sweetheart real estate deal of the 20th Century because the squatters were fortunate enough to have been recognized as a privileged order to whom the law doesn't apply by Bob Rae's NDP.
There can be no revitalization of the waterfront as long as the squatters have a blanket veto over any and all activity on the islands or waterfront that might make noise.
The squatters on the island got the sweetheart real estate deal of the 20th Century because the squatters were fortunate enough to have been recognized as a privileged order to whom the law doesn't apply by Bob Rae's NDP.
There can be no revitalization of the waterfront as long as the squatters have a blanket veto over any and all activity on the islands or waterfront that might make noise.
adma
Superstar
Comrad Miller, you're as ideologically acceptable as this is architecturally acceptable
EnviroTO
Senior Member
There were people living on the island before the airport was built. None of the waterfront redevelopment plans have been stopped by island residents. Any noise that would actually make the islands uninhabitable would also render the islands useless to those who go there to escape the noise and hustle of the city. Yes, there are island residents which complain about noise, you will also find residents all over the city who complain about how a building will cast a shadow, a development will create too much traffic, who hold hostage redevelopment by complaining about the removing a parking lane, and complain the CNE/buskerfest/concert/party/SkyDome is making too much noise. Disagree if you like that a certain establishment or Porter makes too much noise, but someone who labels all island residents as "squatter scum" tells me more about themselves than they tell me about island residents.
Can't you say the same about the airport? How do you get a more sweetheart deal than having the government cover all your losses? It looses money, sits there preventing the space from becoming parkland, and flies in the face of what the elected city government wants to do with that space.
Can't you say the same about the airport? How do you get a more sweetheart deal than having the government cover all your losses? It looses money, sits there preventing the space from becoming parkland, and flies in the face of what the elected city government wants to do with that space.
C
Comrad Miller
Guest
Close the island airport and your going to be left with something that looks like the airport in Prypiat for decades, just like the rest of the waterfront. If you want to escape the noise and hustle of the city find a nice little spot on Lake Simcoe.
The islanders routinely object to just about any public use of the waterfront, Porter Airlines and The Docks are just a pair of instances. They complain about boats observing siginaling regulations, they complain about virtually every large music event, they also complain about air ambulances and Ornge helicopters.
While NIMBY can be found anywhere in a wide number of forms, these guys live in the urban core of the largest city in Canada and thus should have a reasonable allowance for noise of all sorts. The notion that they are entitled to a Lake Simcoe cottage existance mere miles from downtown Toronto to the exclusion of other uses is insanity.
If you want to live in silent isolation, might I suggest they move to the fringes of 905istan and not reside in downtown Toronto.
I am really excited about Porter Airlines and the island airport in general. I don't think the objections of serial Nimby's who without political patronage would have been evicted should really come into the discussion of the use of city parks, airports and waterways. If the use of the airport or music festivals makes the island unsuitable for overnight occupation, so be it.
The islanders routinely object to just about any public use of the waterfront, Porter Airlines and The Docks are just a pair of instances. They complain about boats observing siginaling regulations, they complain about virtually every large music event, they also complain about air ambulances and Ornge helicopters.
While NIMBY can be found anywhere in a wide number of forms, these guys live in the urban core of the largest city in Canada and thus should have a reasonable allowance for noise of all sorts. The notion that they are entitled to a Lake Simcoe cottage existance mere miles from downtown Toronto to the exclusion of other uses is insanity.
If you want to live in silent isolation, might I suggest they move to the fringes of 905istan and not reside in downtown Toronto.
I am really excited about Porter Airlines and the island airport in general. I don't think the objections of serial Nimby's who without political patronage would have been evicted should really come into the discussion of the use of city parks, airports and waterways. If the use of the airport or music festivals makes the island unsuitable for overnight occupation, so be it.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
The reality is cottages, the yacht club, and parks were put on the island to create a cottage country escape in the middle of the city. There were people living on the island prior to the airport being built. Everyone has a different idea of how the city should develop.
So island "squatter scum" cottages being closed up would quickly be turned into something valuable but closing a money loosing airport on the same island would be a wasteland for decades? How long does it take to tear up concrete, knock down buildings, and put down grass and trees make it a part of the park?
The largest group which complains about the existence of the airport and which has blocked the bridge to the airport includes more people from the Bathurst and Queens Quay area.
The reverse argument of course is that if existing residences make the island unsuitable for an airport or music festivals, so be it.
It needs to be up to an elected city government and the law to decide which direction the city goes and what is allowed where. Some people think that there is value in parks in the city, some think people should leave the city to find a park like environment. Some people think the harbour, island, and port lands should be a recreational park like escape and mix of residential and office uses, and some think it should be an industrial port, airport, and flight path. Some cities have closed central airports and moved them away to the suburbs, some have developed downtowns with hardly any residences, and some have decided that residents in the central city are desirable. Even in the middle of New York City they have noise regulations that spell out at what hours certain levels of noise are accepted and not accepted.
So island "squatter scum" cottages being closed up would quickly be turned into something valuable but closing a money loosing airport on the same island would be a wasteland for decades? How long does it take to tear up concrete, knock down buildings, and put down grass and trees make it a part of the park?
The largest group which complains about the existence of the airport and which has blocked the bridge to the airport includes more people from the Bathurst and Queens Quay area.
The reverse argument of course is that if existing residences make the island unsuitable for an airport or music festivals, so be it.
It needs to be up to an elected city government and the law to decide which direction the city goes and what is allowed where. Some people think that there is value in parks in the city, some think people should leave the city to find a park like environment. Some people think the harbour, island, and port lands should be a recreational park like escape and mix of residential and office uses, and some think it should be an industrial port, airport, and flight path. Some cities have closed central airports and moved them away to the suburbs, some have developed downtowns with hardly any residences, and some have decided that residents in the central city are desirable. Even in the middle of New York City they have noise regulations that spell out at what hours certain levels of noise are accepted and not accepted.
C
Comrad Miller
Guest
There were once log cabins and farm houses in what became Central Park, but like Toronto it was decided that permanent residents were not appropriate in a public park.
In the absense of the squatters - or more importantly the squatters disproportionate influence a wider range of uses would be on the table for the area.
See: Canada Malting,
Virtually all of the formal noise complaints come from a very small group of islanders.
I find this thinking astonishing, as though respecting the squatters bedtime is more important than activities that would contribute to the waterfront as a social\cultural destination and as a transportation\business centre. 700 privillaged squatters are dictating land use to 5.5 million people. Seriously?
Did you get a volume discount on all those strawmen?
The squatters and the island airport have nothing to do with any of that, nor are any of those alternatives mutually exclusive. You can have an active commuter/private airport, a giant park, a mixed-use destination waterfront and no squatters to object to any of the above.
The idea that these 700 squatters who are only there because of their strong ties to the NDP should have an all purpose veto over any activity in their earshot is insanity.
Where else on earth would this sort of group have such clout?
Dichotomy
Banned
I see this push-pull argument across many lines. The waterfront is for everyone to use. This is a city, not Algonquin Park. Transportation of all forms is vital to a city's economic health. There is enough Parkland in this city now that is underdeveloped and under used.
Considering the airplane wasn't invented until the early 1900s, it is unfair to say people were living on the island before the airport was built. If that logic were extended across the board, we would still be using the horse and buggy. Come to think of it, that logic is used quite often.
You can't even hear the airplanes from Hanlan's Point.
kEiThZ
Superstar
I hear this line all the time.... Tell me how many people actually go to the downtown waterfront for peace and quiet? With or without the airport I would never associate the downtown waterfront and the islands with an escape from 'the noise and hustle of the city.' Downtown areas should be vibrant areas that include all forms of activity including a tiny airport and locally built airline that readily provides air links to every major city within a 1000 km radius of Toronto.
Eastside
Active Member
To the islands? Thousands, every summer weekend.
I go to the islands a good dozen times every summer though and have never been bothered by the airplane noise.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
An airport, the sound of turboprops being run up for maintenance, and the smell of jet fuel is appropriate in a public park but a quiet cottage is not?
More people use the island for recreation and relaxation than use the airport.
The silos haven't been taken down because they are seen as semi-historic landmarks that represent the ports industrial past and many would like to incorporate them into future developments.
At the airport the runways and all buildings except for the original terminal building would not be seen as historic and the airport lands would become park and not developed. Much easier to rip up and sod the same way it occurred in Chicago's Meigs Field.
Yes. Noise complaints related to the Docks and concerts do come from a very small group of islanders. You have labeled all of the islanders as "squatter scum" whose occupancy should be made as inhospitable as possible. If a large concert was held in Rosedale Park you would also get noise complaints and Rosedale Park and many other parks are also "in the middle of Canada's largest city".
Everybody lives somewhere and every neighbourhood deserves equal protection. The airport is as much a squatter sitting in the way of the city's plan for islands dedicated to recreation as the residents are. Fortunately for the airport there is a level of government and rules that prevent the city from closing it down. Fortunately for the island residents there is a lease agreement for them which allows them to be there as well.
Noise and nighttime in residential areas is mutually exclusive. Look at airports around the world and they are surrounded by light industrial properties and have restrictions on new residential developments. Look at open air concert venues around the world and they are not located next to residential areas.
They don't have any veto activity. They have the right to lodge a noise complaint like every other person. The only reason the city can't close the airport is because of its close ties to business and the federal government.
Every neighbourhood. Community groups exist everywhere protecting their neighbourhoods over the interests of others. The same thing is happening in Weston as GO Transit / Blue 22 tries to expand the rail corridor. The same thing happens when condos are proposed near a residential area. If a huge party happens in the house next to yours that annoys you enough you will probably call someone to lodge a complaint and you will not hold back because the math is 3 or 4 occupants in your house trying to sleep versus 50 people trying to party next door.
Dichotomy said:
The goal of the city is to make the islands a park with trees, grass, picnics, and beaches. People cram onto island ferries all summer to go to a place which is not filled with cars, buildings, and other aspects of city hustle and bustle.
There are parks all over this city. This is the largest city in Canada. That does not make every park appropriate for concerts, aircraft, helicopters, freeways, and trains. One can argue that Algonquin Park is underdeveloped and under used, but most others would argue that that is the whole point of a park. To develop and over use a park would make it no longer a park.
I use Porter airlines. I feel they provide great service. I agree the airport has a right to be there. I look forward to the day high-speed rail connects downtown to the airport and Ottawa and Montreal rendering the downtown airport obsolete so it can become part of the Toronto Island park. I feel a flight path and airport is an industrial use not compatible with sailing, flying kites, and enjoying the escape the park would otherwise provide, and that the two lane Bathurst and Spadina intersection surrounded by residences which has a public school on the corner is not a good match for the traffic that will occur as Porter continues to expand.
I also look forward to the cottage leases expiring but they have a right to be there right now. They are human beings, not "squatter scum", and have a right to complain about things that affect the quality of life in their neighbourhood just as every resident in every other neighbourhood does.