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

generalcanada said:
Ill take a stab at this. Toronto has grown so much since the 80s.
Just look at photos from then and now and say the city is the same. All those condos and people living here only started since in the early 2000's.
Instead of an industrial area it was in the 80s there is tens of thousands of people there, all of which whose lives would be massively improved by having a place to visit on the island, some would prefer a park, or at the very least a connection to the rest of the islands. I would be in favour of some kind of attraction ALA Ontario Place.

Having a park would ensure we continue to develop a livable city, one that actually works for those living there not just commuters or tourists.

Yes, it contributes to the economy, but so do cigarettes and it's a scourge on society. Just because it makes money doesn't mean its inherently good.
Yea it helps with capacity at yyz, but thats more of a problem of not having more than 1 true international airport. Pickering airport anyone? And they have their own concerns.
Remember ytz only goes to east coast and as far west as Winnepeg. Its not like it has destinations that you cant get to from yyz.
Click to expand...

The Pickering airport is an example of why there needs to be some amount of inertia (more than other structures in our urban environment) with existing airports.

It is extraordinarily difficult to get new airports, or even airport expansion (Hello Heathrow) approved that any existing airports need to be kept and optimized/maximized before demolition is considered.

We have already lost Downsview (though never much of an airport) and Buttonville for small personal aircraft. Oshawa is facing resident complaints as well.


***

People also use Meigs field in Chicago as an example for Toronto but fail to realize that Chicago has O'hare (73 million passengers), Midway (22 Million passengers). Plus Rockford (233,000 passengers). Remove the island airport and you leave Toronto with Pearson, and maybe Hamilton. Not an equal comparison
 
Last edited:
Woodbridge_Heights said:
The Pickering airport is an example of why there needs to be some amount of inertia (more than other structures in our urban environment) with existing airports.

It is extraordinarily difficult to get new airports, or even airport expansion (Hello Heathrow) approved that any existing airports need to be kept and optimized/maximized before demolition is considered.

We have already lost Downsview (though never much of an airport) and Buttonville for small personal aircraft. Oshawa is facing resident complaints as well.


***

People also use Meigs field in Chicago as an example for Toronto but fail to realize that Chicago has O'hare (73 million passengers), Midway (22 Million passengers). Plus Rockford (233,000 passengers). Remove the island airport and you leave Toronto with Pearson, and maybe Hamilton. Not an equal comparison
Click to expand...
Well yea theres a reason why its hard to build airports nowadays. They are terrible for the area they get built in. Which is completely true, and an argument for removing YTZ
 
generalcanada said:
Well yea theres a reason why its hard to build airports nowadays. They are terrible for the area they get built in. Which is completely true, and an argument for removing YTZ
Click to expand...

Electrical generating stations also have massive impacts on their surrounding environments. Should we stop using electricity? Or building power plants?

How do you intend for people to travel internationally/overseas? Ship? There are ways to mitigate the impact airports have on the surrounding environment.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Electrical generating stations also have massive impacts on their surrounding environments. Should we stop using electricity? Or building power plants?

How do you intend for people to travel internationally/overseas? Ship? There are ways to mitigate the impact airports have on the surrounding environment.
Click to expand...

Ok, you're getting carried away.

No one is advocating closing Pearson, which currently has additional capacity and will have, for at least another decade and change even if BBTCA were to close.

So no one has to take steamships to Europe.

****

To everyone, I don't think people are well served by re-litigating time and again the general value of airports or the general value of BBTCA.

Clearly some folks skew one direction and some the other on this specific airport. No one is arguing against all airports, and the fact that some airports are quite valuable or necessary does not mean that any and all airports are of equal consequence; just as closing one airport does not mean we should close all airports.

How about we try to limit discussion here to actual news or information and discussion of what has newly come to light, what that may mean, and whether it has changed any given person's mind on the airport's future.

General exchanges of preferences, long held, and mostly unchanging really doesn't add much value.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Electrical generating stations also have massive impacts on their surrounding environments. Should we stop using electricity? Or building power plants?

How do you intend for people to travel internationally/overseas? Ship? There are ways to mitigate the impact airports have on the surrounding environment.
Click to expand...
We don't put new power plants in the downtown of cities. We do have Portlands, Goreway, Pickering - but this situation is non-ideal, and if (hypothetically) the opportunity came to replace Portlands with a solar plant because, say, we were developing the neighbourhood next to it, I say go for it.

At some point in the (hopefully!) not-too-distant future, HxR will relieve demand for short-haul flights to YOW and YYZ. YXU as well in the somewhat distant future.

YTZ handles 5% of the traffic of YYZ. (but 16% of the aircraft movements). Does it provide benefits commensurate with using 1 km2 of land at the foot of Bathurst Street? You might debate this, but at this point, we can only agree to disagree. Misrepresenting other peoples' views (not aimed at you specifically) isn't helpful.

(edited for clarity)
 
Last edited:
Woodbridge_Heights said:
Electrical generating stations also have massive impacts on their surrounding environments. Should we stop using electricity? Or building power plants?

How do you intend for people to travel internationally/overseas? Ship? There are ways to mitigate the impact airports have on the surrounding environment.
Click to expand...
I mean yea? Thats what zoning is for. Same thing with that sugar factory, it has impacts on the surrounding area downtown.
When areas develop, we need to think about things that no longer fit with the area it exists now. Yes, that would include moving the power plant. Obviously easier said than done, but that's what ideals are for.
 
Dinamo5 said:
Why can't we just make more islands and make a connection to the islands that is more than just a tunnel to an airport or a ferry. Not everytime do I feel like waiting in line for hours for a ferry ride to the islands, or pay more for a water taxi. I think a bridge to the islands is the answer here.
Click to expand...
I may be wrong but my memory says the island residents shot that down,
 
generalcanada said:
I mean yea? Thats what zoning is for. Same thing with that sugar factory, it has impacts on the surrounding area downtown.
When areas develop, we need to think about things that no longer fit with the area it exists now. Yes, that would include moving the power plant. Obviously easier said than done, but that's what ideals are for.
Click to expand...
But you can't 'zone' something out of existence. If the government doesn't like a land use, such as the sugar plant, they simply can't declare it illegal land use by changing the zoning and expect it to pack up and leave. How would a government expect to attract and retain industry or commerce if the reputation was the next council or legislature could have different thoughts and wave them away.
 
lenaitch said:
But you can't 'zone' something out of existence. If the government doesn't like a land use, such as the sugar plant, they simply can't declare it illegal land use by changing the zoning and expect it to pack up and leave. How would a government expect to attract and retain industry or commerce if the reputation was the next council or legislature could have different thoughts and wave them away.
Click to expand...
Im going to die on this hill here, but yes they should. If you operate a business that actively harms people around you, you cant expect to 1. be able to block nearby development and 2. be able to continue to keep your business open. It just shouldnt be allowed

1730347463365.png
 
generalcanada said:
Im going to die on this hill here, but yes they should. If you operate a business that actively harms people around you, you cant expect to 1. be able to block nearby development and 2. be able to continue to keep your business open. It just shouldnt be allowed

View attachment 608513
Click to expand...
You do understand that the airport was there long before the residents of the condos that were built over the past decades.
 
generalcanada said:
Im going to die on this hill here, but yes they should. If you operate a business that actively harms people around you, you cant expect to 1. be able to block nearby development and 2. be able to continue to keep your business open. It just shouldnt be allowed

View attachment 608513
Click to expand...
"Actively harms people"? I'm curious what "active harm" either the airport or sugar plant, or perhaps another example causes. I suggest there is a difference between something that causes 'active harm' and something that does align with someone's gentile view of what the urban environment should be. If the existence of a business was at the whim of council, nobody would invest or locate.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top