E
Ed007Toronto
Guest
Stand on Queens Quay facing The Music Garden and tell me if you can see the lake. The damn trees are in the way.
|
|
|
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
Cut them down- they's tall weeds is all.
A
Archivistower
Guest
I couldn't agree more with Enviro's comment - I've become quite irritable when I hear about the condos blocking the waterfront.
Although it's true that Harbour Castle is an impediment.
Although it's true that Harbour Castle is an impediment.
A
adma
Guest
Yup, that's right. So, 150-storey condo towers in Willowdale. Rising to 175-storey along Steeles. Neat
D
Degnaw
Guest
^he obviously didn't mean the entire city, but now that you mention it, that WOULD be pretty neat.
D
DarnDirtyApe
Guest
I did mean the whole city, although I was being flippant.
The idea is that everyone in the city would have a nice view from their rooftop, because all buildings between them and the lake would be shorter.
As it stands now, I get a terrible view from my building's rooftop patio since the building directly south is 5 stories taller.
The idea is that everyone in the city would have a nice view from their rooftop, because all buildings between them and the lake would be shorter.
As it stands now, I get a terrible view from my building's rooftop patio since the building directly south is 5 stories taller.
B
Bogtrotter
Guest
Open up lakeshore pedestrian barrier
Nov. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM
Living beside the Gardiner
Nov. 26.
The best solution to downtown waterfront access is to eliminate the pedestrian barrier created by Lake Shore Blvd. It's way too late to eliminate the visual barrier created by the Gardiner Expressway and the thousands of condo units between the commercial core and the water. Development beneath the Gardiner is not a new suggestion, but it's obviously the best one.
Pedestrian-friendly enclosed commercial and public spaces built from the ground right to the underside of the Gardiner, from the CNE grounds all the way east, is the most practical connection between the core and the waterfront.
I'd go even further with the radical proposal to double-deck the Gardiner, with express-only on a new upper deck from the CNE to the foot of the DVP. With that traffic relief to the existing Gardiner and some adjusted on/off ramps for the downtown core, we entirely avoid the new pedestrian barrier created by the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation's proposed 10-lane surface traffic solution after a Gardiner teardown.
Traffic flows and Gardiner vehicle capacity would be vastly improved and separation of through traffic from on/off traffic is obviously desirable
Development of the hundreds of "new" downtown acres now occupied by Lake Shore Blvd. would provide enormous revenue and fund the project, and then some.
Protection of the underside of the Gardiner by the new structure below it would reduce maintenance costs and allow the demolition of many of the ugly concrete supports now used to hold the Gardiner in the air. Cut-and-cover tunnels for north-south streets could connect to tens of thousands of new underground parking spaces and Gardiner on-ramps.
Most importantly, the new structures provide a wonderful opportunity to plan entirely new gateways to the waterfront with pedestrian throughways integrated with indoor parks, restaurants and stores. Connections to the PATH and facilities such as the Air Canada Centre, the Convention Centre, the Rogers Centre and the CN Tower are obvious. Connections to the revitalized waterfront are unconstrained.
Selective building above the double-decked Gardiner, with 12 lanes of traffic on two levels sandwiched between the lower and upper floors of a taller building should also be considered.
There is a chronic failure of imagination in Toronto, coupled with the Canadian malady of thinking small."
Nov. 27, 2006. 01:00 AM
Living beside the Gardiner
Nov. 26.
The best solution to downtown waterfront access is to eliminate the pedestrian barrier created by Lake Shore Blvd. It's way too late to eliminate the visual barrier created by the Gardiner Expressway and the thousands of condo units between the commercial core and the water. Development beneath the Gardiner is not a new suggestion, but it's obviously the best one.
Pedestrian-friendly enclosed commercial and public spaces built from the ground right to the underside of the Gardiner, from the CNE grounds all the way east, is the most practical connection between the core and the waterfront.
I'd go even further with the radical proposal to double-deck the Gardiner, with express-only on a new upper deck from the CNE to the foot of the DVP. With that traffic relief to the existing Gardiner and some adjusted on/off ramps for the downtown core, we entirely avoid the new pedestrian barrier created by the Waterfront Revitalization Corporation's proposed 10-lane surface traffic solution after a Gardiner teardown.
Traffic flows and Gardiner vehicle capacity would be vastly improved and separation of through traffic from on/off traffic is obviously desirable
Development of the hundreds of "new" downtown acres now occupied by Lake Shore Blvd. would provide enormous revenue and fund the project, and then some.
Protection of the underside of the Gardiner by the new structure below it would reduce maintenance costs and allow the demolition of many of the ugly concrete supports now used to hold the Gardiner in the air. Cut-and-cover tunnels for north-south streets could connect to tens of thousands of new underground parking spaces and Gardiner on-ramps.
Most importantly, the new structures provide a wonderful opportunity to plan entirely new gateways to the waterfront with pedestrian throughways integrated with indoor parks, restaurants and stores. Connections to the PATH and facilities such as the Air Canada Centre, the Convention Centre, the Rogers Centre and the CN Tower are obvious. Connections to the revitalized waterfront are unconstrained.
Selective building above the double-decked Gardiner, with 12 lanes of traffic on two levels sandwiched between the lower and upper floors of a taller building should also be considered.
There is a chronic failure of imagination in Toronto, coupled with the Canadian malady of thinking small."
A
afransen TO
Guest
Hmmm... dare to dream, or dare to nightmare?
O
Oliver Tweed
Guest
I have been thinking about the proposed option of having a Grand Avenue-type road to replace the Gardiner (which will probably never happen, but that's not the point).
Here's The Bund in Shanghai:
I imagine that this road is roughly similar to what was suggested for Toronto. It's a little hard to see because it's so small, but in the first picture it looks like the waterfront is completely severed from the rest of the city. I don't see any obvious way for pedestrians to get to the water.
I thought it might be an interesting comparison. Though it looks nicer than the Gardiner, I don't think something like this would be better. There would have to be better connectivity.
Here's The Bund in Shanghai:
I imagine that this road is roughly similar to what was suggested for Toronto. It's a little hard to see because it's so small, but in the first picture it looks like the waterfront is completely severed from the rest of the city. I don't see any obvious way for pedestrians to get to the water.
I thought it might be an interesting comparison. Though it looks nicer than the Gardiner, I don't think something like this would be better. There would have to be better connectivity.
B
Brighter Hell
Guest
^Lakeshore Dr in Chicago looks a lot like that on the north side. It's basically a highway. The only way for pedestrians to get to the waterfront is through tunnels.
A
adma
Guest
Also think of West St. in Manhattan...
E
Ed007Toronto
Guest
Actually West Street (formerly the elevated Gardiner-like Westside Highway) is exactly what I would do to the Gardiner. This is 100 times better than the mess we currently have. How anyone can say the Gardiner isn't a barrier is beyond me.
Lights only on some streets. Speed limit is higher IIRC than regular NY streets.
.JPG)
.JPG)
Condos facing West Street.
.JPG)
Former portlands now a beautiful park.
.JPG)
Lights only on some streets. Speed limit is higher IIRC than regular NY streets.
Condos facing West Street.
Former portlands now a beautiful park.
A
adma
Guest
But I think one problem w/a lot of these comparison points, from the Bund to West St, is that the locational (as opposed to traffic-pattern) equivalent here *isn't* the Gardiner/Lakeshore. It's Queen's Quay...
H
humanlevel
Guest
The Bund in Shanghai and West St in Manhatten are both busier than Queens Quay from my experience, but I suppose they are locationally more similar. However, I think the Bund is the only high speed throughfare near the river through that part of Shanghai (While QQ has the Gardinere). West Street is also used as a high speed end around by many taxis trying to skirt traffic deeper into manhatten. I'm not sure Taxis and other vehicles would use QQ for that purpose.
H
humanlevel
Guest
As indicated from the Shanghai photos, the grand avenue can a terrible pedestiran barrier if poorly done. However, it can be very well done as well (Univ Ave, Paris, Golden Gate Park?). I hope we aren't generally looking to urban China for progressive road planning ideas. I just don't see why Toronto needs an elevated highway through the harbourfront core (Spadina to DVP) because, as the study found, most of the traffic is heading to/from downtown rather than bypassing it from the east or west, and creating a grand avenue middle section (presuming the Front Street Extention gets built) would bear minimal commuting pain. Distributing the Gardiner traffic through a broader grid of streets would also reduce the gridlock on Spadina. I hope eventually the harbourfront condo dwellers will form a critical mass that will eventually drive the grand avenue development (and the end of the island airport). That's the hope at least.