Toronto Ontario Place | ?m | ?s | Infrastructure ON

picard102 said:
If I'm at OP for the day, I'm not concerned with whats going on at the CNE.
Click to expand...
Referring more to the accessibility. The majority of visitors will approach on foot from north of the CNE. Of course, if you’re in the minority driving or biking along Lakeshore my point is missed.

Therme could build an equally sized, equally attractive facility in a much more accessible spot and with a lot less upheaval.
 
reinventingthewheel said:
I don’t really follow your line of thinking. In my mind this is a good alternative and great tact from the mayor.

I’ve been saying this since the first announcement of OP redevelopment, why don’t we deal with the adjacent under-utilized CNE lands first? Can’t speak for everyone but I think a fancy new OP will be bit underwhelming while it’s still surrounded by a deserted CNE.
Click to expand...
the suggestion that any of the better living center food building or hell even the stanley barracks should be torn down is honestly laughable. the loss of any of those buildings equate to a total loss of the CNE as we know it

Also the fact is that the province owns OP and the city owns the CNE grounds. If the city wants to redevelop the CNE they can (and they should).
There is no reason for the province to "deal with the cne grounds" before looking at CNE

To be clear its the citys fault that the CNE is so deserted. Dont put it on the province
 
generalcanada said:
the loss of any of those buildings equate to a total loss of the CNE as we know it
Click to expand...
generalcanada said:
If the city wants to redevelop the CNE they can (and they should).
Click to expand...
Bit over dramatic but yes the city should redevelop it. And here’s our mayor suggesting that exactly, while also echoing sentiments of many that the province shouldn’t privatize our public space, etc.
 
reinventingthewheel said:
Bit over dramatic but yes the city should redevelop it. And here’s our mayor suggesting that exactly, while also echoing sentiments of many that the province shouldn’t privatize our public space, etc.
Click to expand...
no thats not what shes saying, all shes saying is "why not just put it there". there was 0 thought in that statement. "its big enough" isnt the only requirement for an alternative site.
 
picard102 said:
Except the CNE grounds are not an equally attractive site no matter the structure.
Click to expand...

?

The proposal levels the entire existing landscape at Ontario Place, every tree and blade of grass gone.

I don't see how the CNE is a lesser location aesthetically if you're starting over from a moonscape.

I mean the venue being created here is an indoor venue....................but I get that a nice view has its appeal.

This is the southern view from the Better Living Centre:

1695819958286.png


With the landscape budget for the OP site.............I'm quite sure this could be a stunning Lake view.
 
generalcanada said:
about the trees its kinda funny people keep missing.

those trees are coming down anyway due to soil contamination.

Even if we redeveloped it to be a park, the entire island needs to be clearcut
Click to expand...

I do wish you would refrain from posting on things you don't understand.

For 100% clarity no tree removal is required if the current landscape and grades are maintained.

The contamination issue occurs where you create a new foundation and where you need to re-grade.. The ground is not poisonous to walk on........
 
Something needs to be done though. So let's make up a crises so something needs to be done about it...

...and oh, how convenient they're planning to build something there that will do something about that "crises". /s
 
picard102 said:
One is on the lake, the other is across the road from the lake.
Click to expand...

Right, but the activities are entirely within the building; so the only utility of the Lake is the view; the BLC sits well above the grade of Lakeshore, and for the OP landscaping budget, I can make Lakeshore invisible from a building sited there, so that the Lake is the view.
 
Last edited:
I kind of agree with Olivia on this. Parts of the ground level structure could be kept. Obviously it would go up quite a bit higher than the existing building, and there would be nice views in several directions from upper levels. The spa got started as part of an initiative to revive OP, but it's clear that many feel it is a case of destroying the village in order to save the village. Better to move Therme to EP and maybe proceed with some kind of more limited intervention spanning the OP parking lot and west island that is less destructive. It could even be the Science Centre, providing that the original building at the other end of the Ontario Line is restored and given a new public use. Perhaps as a mausoleum for Ford Nation and its program to rebuild Ontario.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
I do wish you would refrain from posting on things you don't understand.

For 100% clarity no tree removal is required if the current landscape and grades are maintained.

The contamination issue occurs where you create a new foundation and where you need to re-grade.. The ground is not poisonous to walk on........
Click to expand...
cmon man dont go there dont do personal attacks. ive read those reports. have you? it litterally says the soil is contaminated and needs to be completely replaced. sure its not "poisonous" per se, but its contaminated which is what happens to soil after 50 years of neglect. it doesnt need to be poisonous to need to be replaced
 
Northern Light said:
Right, but the activities are entirely within the building; so the only utility of the Lake is the view; the BLC sits well above the grade of Lakeshore, and for the OP landscaping budget, I can make Lakeshore invisible from a building cited there, so that the Lake is the view.
Click to expand...
The utility is the proximity and the surrounding amenities planed. Many places can "view" the lake, but proximity is more valuable.
 
generalcanada said:
cmon man dont go there dont do personal attacks.
Click to expand...

Its not a personal attack. I didn't critique you as a human being in anyway, shape or form. I critiqued that you are not known to be expert on the subject of ecology or landscape or regulations around same, and you are pontificating as if
you were.

Perhaps equally important, UT'ers know I have some knowledge about this subject, in fact a fair bit of knowledge about this subject; and I am correcting your statement to reflect the facts. That's not personal, its just science.

generalcanada said:
ive read those reports. have you?
Click to expand...

Yes, I have.

generalcanada said:
it litterally says the soil is contaminated and needs to be completely replaced. sure its not "poisonous" per se,
Click to expand...

No, that's not what is said, you're reading it incorrectly. I explained that already.

The need for soil replacement is a regulatory one, and it occurs when you dig............not before.

generalcanada said:
but its contaminated which is what happens to soil after 50 years of neglect.
Click to expand...

It what? LOL It absolutely does not.

That is one of mostly completely ridiculous statements I've seen posted on UT, ever; and I've seen a few.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top