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

On top of more airlines on the way to the Island Airport now comes the realization (DA!) that they are out of room for parking. So the "battle brews" over demolishing the Canada Malting Silos (and presumably Ireland Park) to pave it over into a parking lot. Won't that look great along our billion dollar, "world class" revitalized waterfront? This Island Airport is out of control, I saw these types of problems coming which is why so many of us opposed it - among other reasons.

Just friggen' brilliant.

Island airport's success may mean waterfront parking lot
 
I don't think we need to worry. The chances of the city allowing the demolition of the silos and a park to create a parking lot is unlikely. The city is trying to reduce driving and push transit everywhere else... I doubt they would support new surface lots at the island airport along the waterfront. At most a building might get underground parking.
 
"And parking capacity, real estate development and large parks are not mutually exclusive. You could put parking lots under parks."
Click to expand...

I like the idea of making a park with a parking lot underneath. If they dig deep enough, they could build it out under the channel so that it could be accessed from the island-side as well.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
On top of more airlines on the way to the Island Airport now comes the realization (DA!) that they are out of room for parking. So the "battle brews" over demolishing the Canada Malting Silos (and presumably Ireland Park) to pave it over into a parking lot. Won't that look great along our billion dollar, "world class" revitalized waterfront? This Island Airport is out of control, I saw these types of problems coming which is why so many of us opposed it - among other reasons.

Just friggen' brilliant.

Island airport's success may mean waterfront parking lot
Click to expand...

No where in the article is there any mention of wanting to put in a surface parking lot. Now, taking a bit off the site to widen the road to allow a taxi queue might be a good idea, but the crazy reaction from Vaughan is just knee jerk.

If the city can reduce its costs for taking action on the Malting Silos by giving rights to build a parkade under the site then how that a bad thing? Seems win-win to me.
 
It's propaganda by Vaughan and The Star. After all, the article did quote Community AIR. The airport at its height handled something like 800 000 pax and did that with less than the parking they have today. Parking is not essential to the airport's success. They could simply strike a deal with some downtown lot and run the shuttle till there.

I do agree with SJC and Darwinkgo that there's an opportunity here. Building underground would ensure that the parkland or heritage structure on top is preserved. And it could well be a prelude to a road or pedestrian tunnel into YTZ. I am fairly sure that YTZ will build a tunnel if it gets the opportunity. 30-40 million isn't much when the airport is profitable. That's only a couple of years revenue. And when you take into account the cost of the ferry operation, there's a business case to be made for a tunnel or bridge.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
On top of more airlines on the way to the Island Airport now comes the realization (DA!) that they are out of room for parking. So the "battle brews" over demolishing the Canada Malting Silos (and presumably Ireland Park) to pave it over into a parking lot. Won't that look great along our billion dollar, "world class" revitalized waterfront? This Island Airport is out of control, I saw these types of problems coming which is why so many of us opposed it - among other reasons.

Just friggen' brilliant.

Island airport's success may mean waterfront parking lot
Click to expand...

Hi dt.

I sure like your sentiments. My most recent ponderings are that the "success" of the Island Airport may just bring the whole thing down, eventually. Just a fond thought I wanted to share with you. These other folks will (I am sure) sense no damage done as increased air traffic disrupts any/all pleasure-seeking at the Islands and at the various little amphitheaters, restaurants, and other and attractions that have begun to dot our waterfront.
 
^ Couldn't be farther from the truth. I live on the waterfront and the planes don't have any impact whatsoever on the waterfront experience. The noise of the planes doesn't come close to the rumble of the streetcars along QQ or the hum of the Gardiner. In fact, I can't tell you the last time I noticed the sound of a plane and I'm actually watching one land out my window right now.
 
TonyV said:
Hi dt.

I sure like your sentiments. My most recent ponderings are that the "success" of the Island Airport may just bring the whole thing down, eventually. Just a fond thought I wanted to share with you. These other folks will (I am sure) sense no damage done as increased air traffic disrupts any/all pleasure-seeking at the Islands and at the various little amphitheaters, restaurants, and other and attractions that have begun to dot our waterfront.
Click to expand...

If our waterfront is sooooo fragile that all activity ceases at the slightest buzz of airplane engines, then we have bigger problems than the Island airport. Thankfully, I think you're way off base. The waterfront hasn't been as successful as people would like because of flawed political decision making and a mish-mash of plans that never get implemented, not because of the airport.

Also, I'd suggest that you keep in that there's a lot more to the Waterfront than just what's there between the Leslie St. Spit and Ontario Place.
 
jn_12 said:
^ Couldn't be farther from the truth. I live on the waterfront and the planes don't have any impact whatsoever on the waterfront experience. The noise of the planes doesn't come close to the rumble of the streetcars along QQ or the hum of the Gardiner. In fact, I can't tell you the last time I noticed the sound of a plane and I'm actually watching one land out my window right now.
Click to expand...

I respect anyone's opinion who favours the island airport, I simply have a different view and I object to it for a variety of reasons plus I'm disheartened to see it continuing to expand.

As for the noise from the aircraft there's no doubt that noise is not a major issue partly because the engines are reasonably quiet compared to most aircraft plus other nearby noise tricks the mind into thinking that the planes are quieter than they really are. When cycling along the waterfront I always stop in at the Music Garden and no one can tell me they can't hear planes taking off above the sounds of traffic, streetcars, boats and vehicular traffic on Queens Quay. Spend an hour at a quiet location like Cherry Beach or Tommy Thompson Park and you get a true sense of what kind of output these planes are capable of as they descend from above. All that said noise is really not my big problem. I just don't believe a commercial airport (a rapidly expanding one at that) should be located so close to the city centre in 2009 and in the middle of parkland. Pollution is another. Ten, twenty or thirty years ago few cared because the only destination here was the Island itself, few lived down there and no one came down to the lake area here back then. Keep in mind too that big money rules, what will YTZ be like in five years, or ten years from now. Could it be possible that runways are eventually expanded to accommodate larger craft? Never say never.

Darwinkgo said:
No where in the article is there any mention of wanting to put in a surface parking lot. Now, taking a bit off the site to widen the road to allow a taxi queue might be a good idea, but the crazy reaction from Vaughan is just knee jerk.

If the city can reduce its costs for taking action on the Malting Silos by giving rights to build a parkade under the site then how that a bad thing? Seems win-win to me.
Click to expand...

Did you even read this article?
Under the site, no, it's not a bad thing. No airport and no parking is a good thing!

Here are quotes from the article I read, and linked to:

"A dramatic jump in passenger traffic at the island airport has triggered interest among other airlines and fears the airport's controlling agency wants to build a giant parking lot along the waterfront."

All of this has Councillor Adam Vaughan worrying that the port authority is looking longingly at the derelict, city-owned Canada Malting silos site as an opportunity to expand its airport parking facilities, potentially by 600 spots.

Currently, there are only about 220 parking spots near the ferry that takes passengers to the island.

"Of course there is a need for more parking. There is growing demand for parking," said Anthony Pappalardo, vice-president of Stolport Corp., which manages the lot.

Pappalardo said the adjacent Canada Malting site might lend itself to a redevelopment that would expand the amount of waterside parkland while also increasing vehicle parking, possibly underground. The city is considering whether to tear down the old silos, having recently ruled out turning them into a city museum.

"As a citizen of the city, I think the Canada Malting site has tremendous appeal from a parks perspective," Pappalardo said. "And parking capacity, real estate development and large parks are not mutually exclusive. You could put parking lots under parks."

A city hall source told the Star that an intermediary approached the city about three months ago to sound out the possibility of expanding parking onto the silo site.

I don't want to get too serious on this issue, I'm just expressing my displeasure here. Everyone I've spoken to who has flown Porter swears by them. Again, I just think it's an inappropriate location.
 
I don't particularly support the island airport, but if it needs a parking lot to be successful, so be it. But, there is plenty of underused space around the silos that can be developed. I really don't see where this proposal to knock down the silos is coming from, given opportunities to provide parking elsewhere. How can we be considering tearing down a unique and historic structure, in an area where there are so few? For a parking lot, no less.
 
The pollution argument is one that I cannot agree with. Why should all aviation related pollution be concentrated in Malton? What makes waterfront residents sooo special that they should be free of all fumes and noise while the rest of us in the 'burbs have to suffer?

If that's the proposal than I have a counter proposal. I'll support getting rid of the Island airport as long as every resident south of Bloor agrees to a personal ban against them using Pearson or the Pickering airport when that's up and running. If they don't want me polluting their neighbourhood, then I don't want them doing the same to mine either. And if they think Hamilton is far, then they'll finally get how Scarberians or Durham region residents feel to drive to Pearson for every flight.
 
kEiThZ said:
The pollution argument is one that I cannot agree with. Why should all aviation related pollution be concentrated in Malton? What makes waterfront residents sooo special that they should be free of all fumes and noise while the rest of us in the 'burbs have to suffer?

If that's the proposal than I have a counter proposal. I'll support getting rid of the Island airport as long as every resident south of Bloor agrees to a personal ban against them using Pearson or the Pickering airport when that's up and running. If they don't want me polluting their neighbourhood, then I don't want them doing the same to mine either. And if they think Hamilton is far, then they'll finally get how Scarberians or Durham region residents feel to drive to Pearson for every flight.
Click to expand...

Pearson was built on farmland with next to nothing around it. As planned expansions occurred over the years towns in the area grew and eventually a city was formed. Few still living can reasonably complain about pollution or noise from Pearson, anyone who moves there knows what they are getting into by what's going on over by Airport Road. Conversely, Toronto Island Airport only became a commercial airport in the early 80's (despite the efforts by the City opposing it) paving the way for it to become what it is today.
 
dt_toronto_geek said:
... Conversely, Toronto Island Airport only became a commercial airport in the early 80's (despite the efforts by the City opposing it) paving the way for it to become what it is today.
Click to expand...

... and this occurred by the actions of a federally appointed body (The TPA) which runs in the face of local democracy. In fact, the ruling federal party staffs the TPA with convenient lap dogs. In essence, the TPA is just a nice little patronage parking spot, with no accountability to the city.

No democratic decision has allowed for the expansion of the tacky Island Airport on our doorstep. It's all been hatched in backroom deals.

Ah, errors of our past -- generations ago, some influential people goofed, and squandered some of our paltry natural beauty (the shoreline and the island) on ugly infrastrure and an airfield .. boring boring boring, not to mention tacky. The current situation has continuing appeal to aircraft buffs, and especially to a certain fellow who is being cut a really good deal on rent -- and back taxes.
 
TonyV said:
... and this [commercial flights at the island airport starting in the 80s] occurred by the actions of a federally appointed body (The TPA) which runs in the face of local democracy. In fact, the ruling federal party staffs the TPA with convenient lap dogs. In essence, the TPA is just a nice little patronage parking spot, with no accountability to the city.

No democratic decision has allowed for the expansion of the tacky Island Airport on our doorstep. It's all been hatched in backroom deals.

Ah, errors of our past -- generations ago, some influential people goofed, and squandered some of our paltry natural beauty (the shoreline and the island) on ugly infrastrure and an airfield .. boring boring boring, not to mention tacky. The current situation has continuing appeal to aircraft buffs, and especially to a certain fellow who is being cut a really good deal on rent -- and back taxes.
Click to expand...
The TPA didn't exist then. It was the Habour commission which was controlled by the city. The TPA was created in '99 if my memory serves me, with the mandate to become self sufficient and free the city of its annual subsidy to the Harbour Commission.

Plus, the TPA Payment in Lieu of Taxes amount was upheld by the court. By the by, the city is also suing Ontario Place over Payment in Lieu of Taxes so it isn't a unique situation at all.

Even if the TPA was reverted back to the Harbour Commission, and the Habour Commission opted to not operate the airport any more, the federal government would have the right to take control of the airport and create an airport authority, with possibly even less city representation than the TPA has now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top