Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

Automation Gallery said:
Come on. leave the measly 200 acres of Airport land alone for a transportation hub that has been operating for the past 80 years
....we have 880 acres @ the Portlands, another 820 acres @ the Toronto Islands, plus 260 acres @ Exhibition Place for all that other BLING
Click to expand...

Like, I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if it wasn't TWO HUNDRED FLIPPING ACRES a stone's throw away from the heart of the city. The Portlands project is a good comparable, but even they had to contend with existing industrial activity that couldn't (and shouldn't) be ignored or shut down entirely. Those existing uses put a damper on where and how fast revitalization could occur.

On the other hand, if/when the island airport closes? The site would quite literally be a blank slate to do whatever the hell we want. The only pushback I could *maybe* see would be from existing Toronto Islands users, but that's small potatoes compared to the teeth-pulling process that is development literally anywhere else in the city. That's an opportunity most cities would kill for.

Any Toronto-area airport with a convenient air-rail link could fulfil essentially the same function as the island airport. But there is NO site in the city that could deliver as much redevelopment benefit as a fully-revitalized Island Airport site (we are in the midst of a massive housing crisis, for pete's sake).
 
Last edited:
NY99 said:
Like, I'd be more sympathetic to your argument if it wasn't TWO HUNDRED FLIPPING ACRES a stone's throw away from the heart of the city. The Portlands project is a good comparable, but even they had to contend with existing industrial activity that couldn't (and shouldn't) be ignored or shut down entirely. Those existing uses put a damper on where/how fast revitalization can occur.

On the other hand, if/when the island airport closes? The site would quite literally be a blank slate to do whatever the hell we want. The only pushback I could *maybe* see would be from existing Toronto Islands users, but that's small potatoes compared to the teeth-pulling process that is development literally anywhere else in the city. That's an opportunity most cities would kill for.

Any Toronto-area airport with a convenient air-rail link could fulfil essentially the same function as the island airport. But there is NO site in the city that could deliver as much redevelopment benefit as a fully-revitalized Island Airport site (we are in the midst of a massive housing crisis, for pete's sake).
Click to expand...
Not to mention, the potential of the Portlands is constrained because of the airport approaches limiting height.
 
Rainforest said:
I'm OK with giving a greater support to HFR, the government covering both the capital expenses and a reasonable operational subsidy. While the airport should only be retained if it can pay for itself. That said, HFR isn't going to replace most of air travel in the foreseeable future, like in the next 20 years. Very optimistically, HFR may take over the Corridor (Quebec - Montreal - Ottawa - Toronto - Windsor / Niagara), and even more optimistically, Toronto to New York. All other trips of a comparable or greater distance will be mostly made by air. Closing Billy Bishop will merely shift those trips to Pearson.
Click to expand...

the majority of Billy Bishop users fly to HFR destinations, though. And what's the problem with shifting a few longer-distance trips to Pearson? The GTAA does have long-term expansion plans, so capacity shouldn't really be a concern; plus, access by transit is set to improve immensely. A dynamic island neighbourhood could mean tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have a place to live, easing the housing crisis in this city. Should the marginal convenience for a few well-heeded travellers to Halifax or Chicago take precedence over that?

Rainforest said:
The views of flying planes aren't limited to those on the plane; once I took my kids to watch the planes from the shore when we visited downtown. Of course, nobody will fly to Toronto just to see this airport, it isn't that special. But when the tourists come anyway, some might choose coming via Billy Bishop as a little extra perk.
Click to expand...

There are trade-offs to any decision we make on the island airport. But if one of the arguments in defence of keeping it open is that you get the "little extra perk" of seeing our lovely skyline, I think that speaks VOLUMES. Like hello, we've got a housing crisisssssss

If the view out of an airplane is that big if a concern for you, take comfort in the fact that most flights into Pearson offer pretty decent views of the city as well.

Rainforest said:
It was strange to hear that air travel is undemocratic :) ; 90% of the Canadian residents can afford to fly occasionally. On the other hand, try "The Canadian" train; it will cost you several thousand for a one-way trip from Toronto to Vancouver, and that's a train for the rich. If the Billy Bishop clientele is disproportionately business-oriented, that's because of geography (business types come to downtown more often), not because Porter charges higher prices for the same destinations. I am not a frequent flier, and don't live in downtown, but I flew from Billy Bishop twice in the last ~ 5 years because the price was actually a bit lower than for flying from Pearson.
Click to expand...

I mean yeah... but you know what isn't an occasional thing? Going to a park. And you know what is even LESS of an occasional thing? Spending time in the home you live in. I'm not saying the Island Airport isn't useful to anybody. I'm saying its infinitely less useful than it could be as a park, or a tourist destination, or a cool-ass neighbourhood with lots of cool-ass affordable housing.

Rainforest said:
Speaking of public spaces: if the city can replace the airport with something truly unique and remarkable, then maybe it is worth considering. But, what could that be? ***The city already has Toronto Island Park, Distillery, waterfront, Exhibition, underused Ontario Place.*** Adding one more district that's essentially similar to one of those will not really add more character to the city; people who visit the downtown anyway will spread out between more destinations, but it will not give more people a reason to come.
Click to expand...

Oh come the heck ON. Are you seriously suggesting this city has exhausted our potential supply of interesting destinations? That we've somehow 'tapped out', that our existing destinations run the full gamut of the urban experience, that anything we do to the Island airport couldn't possibly be unique? And that any new destination we create would 'dilute' the experience of our existing destinations? That's a ridiculously zero-sum view of things, and totally out of touch with the way cities grow and change. Toronto is growing like crazy... there's obviously more than enough room for tons of cool new sh*t to be built.
 
Last edited:
NY99 said:
Wouldn't it be better to democratize the site, making it accessible to all, and create an actual reason to go there? This place could be home to high-quality natural spaces, world-class cultural institutions, major public art installations/structures, eclectic (perhaps fully car-free) dense neighbourhoods... If we were smart, we'd aim to create all of the above.
Click to expand...

You from Toronto?

I refuse to believe anybody from the GTA can be this naive.

We all know what's going to happen. It's going to get redeveloped for million dollar condos and plebes like me (maybe you're loaded) will get to enjoy the restaurant at the bottom of the condo once a year, as the public amenity.

No thanks.

I'd rather keep the airport. When we build actual HSR to Ottawa and Montreal and Detroit, we can chat about closing the airport.

Thankfully, most of the city wants the airport. So what a few downtowners are complaining about is all but irrelevant. But if the Scarborough Subway hasn't taught y'all lessons, YTZ might serve up an opportunity for reinforcement.

NY99 said:
Like hello, we've got a housing crisisssssss
Click to expand...

And that has nothing to do with the airport, and everything to do with more than half the city being zoned for single family homes. Where is the advocacy for bulldozing those?
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
You from Toronto?

I refuse to believe anybody from the GTA can be this naive.

We all know what's going to happen. It's going to get redeveloped for million dollar condos and plebes like me (maybe you're loaded) will get to enjoy the restaurant at the bottom of the condo once a year, as the public amenity.

No thanks.

I'd rather keep the airport. When we build actual HSR to Ottawa and Montreal and Detroit, we can chat about closing the airport.
Click to expand...

I mean we literally have a counterfactual here in Waterfront Toronto. Despite certain oft-mentioned flaws (cough cough boring buildings cough cough), overall they're doing a DAMN good job of opening up the Waterfront lands and making them attractive and accessible to all.

I'm not saying an Island Airport redevelopment can't possibly go wrong... but if you can't see that it can go very, very right, *you're* the one out of touch here.

kEiThZ said:
And that has nothing to do with the airport, and everything to do with more than half the city being zoned for single family homes. Where is the advocacy for bulldozing those?
Click to expand...

I'd love to do that too... If I could snap my fingers, I'd eliminate single-family zoning before redeveloping the Island Airport no question. But NIMBYs do exist, and more importantly, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Why not fight for better zoning laws while creating a model neighbourhood for what a post-single-family-home neighbourhood can look like?
 
Last edited:
NY99 said:
the majority of Billy Bishop users fly to HFR destinations, though. And what's the problem with shifting a few longer-distance trips to Pearson? The GTAA does have long-term expansion plans, so capacity shouldn't really be a concern; plus, access by transit is set to improve immensely. A dynamic island neighbourhood could mean tens if not hundreds of thousands of people have a place to live, easing the housing crisis in this city. Should the marginal convenience for a few well-heeded travellers to Halifax or Chicago take precedence over that?

There are trade-offs to any decision we make on the island airport. But if one of the arguments in defence of keeping it open is that you get the "little extra perk" of seeing our lovely skyline, I think that speaks VOLUMES. Like hello, we've got a housing crisisssssss

If the view out of an airplane is that big if a concern for you, take comfort in the fact that most flights into Pearson offer pretty decent views of the city as well.

I mean yeah... but you know what isn't an occasional thing? Going to a park. And you know what is even LESS of an occasional thing? Spending time in the home you live in. I'm not saying the Island Airport isn't useful to anybody. I'm saying its infinitely less useful than it could be as a park, or a tourist destination, or a cool-ass neighbourhood with lots of cool-ass affordable housing.

Oh come the heck ON. Are you seriously suggesting this city has exhausted our potential supply of interesting destinations? That we've somehow 'tapped out', that our existing destinations run the full gamut of the urban experience, that anything we do to the Island airport couldn't possibly be unique? And that any new destination we create would 'dilute' the experience of our existing destinations? That's a ridiculously zero-sum view of things, and totally out of touch with the way cities grow and change. Toronto is growing like crazy... there's obviously more than enough room for tons of cool new sh*t to be built.
Click to expand...

Your whole argument is based on a false premise that the housing crisis is caused by the lack of land for new houses. Nope, it is caused by the lack of funding. Toronto isn't Singapoure, or London, or Paris. We have acres and acres of available land right next to the existing subway stations. Sure, not in the downtown core bounded by Dufferin - Bloor - Leslie, but why is it any worse. Some of that land is occupied by SFHs, and could be bought out and redeveloped for a profit, if there were no zoning restrictions. Some land is occupied by low-rise industries and could be bought out even easier, no zoning restrictions exist. But, where is the funding.

If the funding was available: I expect that providing electricity / water / sever connections for inland developments is a lot easier than extending the utility lines of sufficient capacity to a massive development on an island. Plus, providing transit will not be a trivial task. The Waterfront streetcar is kind of there, but the walking distance from the island to the closest stop is substantial. And reconfiguring the streetcar or adding a branch is another chore. All those issues can be managed, but we have numerous parcels of land where no such issues exist.

Regarding your final paragraph, the only ridiculous thing here is your stream of slogans that is devoid of substance. If you believe that the airport can be replaced with something more interesting, then the onus is on you to suggest what exactly that could be. I don't deny that possibility, but you have to come up with the actual proposal before it makes sense to consider getting rid of the airport. Instead, you are just saying "let's close the airport first, after that maybe someone will find a good replacement".
 
Closing the airport isn't going to fly without HSR. And HFR is still only marginally competitive with air to Ottawa. It's not competitive with air to Montreal at all.

Like I said earlier, this is going to turn out like the Scarborough Subway debate. Folks who use that airport are way more politically active and connected than the core opponents who are entirely concentrated in the 2-3 ridings near the airport, and who always vote NDP or Liberal. Actually, try and close the airport and the public sentiment across the city, against NIMBYs who want to shutter the airport, will be glorious to watch.

Build the alternative (HSR + Pearson Transit Hub) and you Community AIR folks might have a sellable case.
 
kEiThZ said:
Closing the airport isn't going to fly without HSR. And HFR is still only marginally competitive with air to Ottawa. It's not competitive with air to Montreal at all.

Like I said earlier, this is going to turn out like the Scarborough Subway debate. Folks who use that airport are way more politically active and connected than the core opponents who are entirely concentrated in the 2-3 ridings near the airport, and who always vote NDP or Liberal. Actually, try and close the airport and the public sentiment across the city, against NIMBYs who want to shutter the airport, will be glorious to watch.

Build the alternative (HSR + Pearson Transit Hub) and you Community AIR folks might have a sellable case.
Click to expand...
What if the airport is bankrupt?
 
IMO, if it is only bankrupt because of the Covid travel dip, then it should be bailed out.

If it becomes fiscally unsustainable under the normal conditions, then it should be closed. Although such a scenario is extremely unlikely, the proximity to the dense downtown core is a unique business advantage and they should be idiots if they can't make profits.
 
kEiThZ said:
And there's no economic benefit to easy access by air to the city centre?

Neither do airports and airlines. That's why they are getting federal bailouts.
Click to expand...
There is. Build transit to Pearson. There's another airport in Toronto.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top