Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[TKTKTK]

Well, you have made yourself clear: you are not in favour of redeveloping the waterfront either. At least you are direct about it.

For those who are interested in making this area something other than underused industrial land, and turning it into a 'prime location', getting rid of the Gardiner is key.

I have nothing against redeveloping the waterfront, so please don't try and put words into my mouth. I don't see a conflict of interest between the two ideas. I think you're being duplicitous in suggesting that the only way to develop the waterfront is to first tear down the Gardiner. The ideas are very separate.

i think there's also a difference in turning the area into a "prime location" and just developing the area. The Gardiner doesn't stand in the way of development.

 

[alklay]

I have nothing against redeveloping the waterfront, so please don't try and put words into my mouth. I don't see a conflict of interest between the two ideas. I think you're being duplicitous in suggesting that the only way to develop the waterfront is to first tear down the Gardiner. The ideas are very separate.

i think there's also a difference in turning the area into a "prime location" and just developing the area. The Gardiner doesn't stand in the way of development.

The waterfront plans are there for all to see. They do not accept the area for what it is, thankfully. They want to change the area. And again, all those who have studied the area and those who are now in charge of redeveloping it (as opposed to 'accepting the area for what it is') have articulated that the Gardiner does stand in the way of development. That is why there are plans to remove it.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Thank God we're losing more of this monstrosity - this physical and psychic curse that we've lived with for far too long.

Even after all these years, whenever I go south on Carlaw to where the first section was removed, I feel a sense of deliverance from evil, of a dark cloud lifting. But I still sense where the amputated section was, like some sort of phantom limb that won't fade from memory completely.

 

[TKTKTK]

The waterfront plans are there for all to see. They do not accept the area for what it is, thankfully. They want to change the area. And again, all those who have studied the area and those who are now in charge of redeveloping it (as opposed to 'accepting the area for what it is') have articulated that the Gardiner does stand in the way of development. That is why there are plans to remove it.

Well, their lack of creative thinking is hardly my failing. Suggesting that the Gardiner stands in the way of development is not unlike the idea that 'urban blight' (in the 60s) stood in the way of development. It stood in the way of specific types of development, but not development in total. I think it's a mistake to permanently erase the area's history because a bunch of people who don't live here can't fathom how development might happen while respecting what's already here

Where do you live?

 

[alklay]

I live under the Gardiner.

So all the people who have studied and planned for the area over the last 30 years, and all those who want to the area developed as per the plans that have been worked on with public consultation (largely with people who live in the area), all lack 'creative thinking'? And we should keep anything that has been around for a long time, even if its in the form of blight, because its 'history'?

Allllrighty then!

 

[waterloowarrior]

there's a bunch of info on waterfrontoroto's site
http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dyna...1b08&second=4644b9f62b745&third=442ee40e416d7

 

[TKTKTK]

I live under the Gardiner.

So all the people who have studied and planned for the area over the last 30 years, and all those who want to the area developed as per the plans that have been worked on with public consultation (largely with people who live in the area), all lack 'creative thinking'? And we should keep anything that has been around for a long time, even if its in the form of blight, because its 'history'?

It's not actually blight though, just like the Ward, or what St. Jamestown tore down, or Regent Park, or Moss Park. It's just a rundown structure that needs some updating and upkeeping. It still serves its purpose, though no longer in a fashionable way. That's really what it comes down to though, an elevated highway is no longer fashionable - so we better get rid of it. I don't think leveling and erasing a large part of our city (and history) is a creative solution to the job of planning. No amount of starchitect landscaping can overcome that.

I know in SimCity it's a lot easier to just start a new map, than work on an old one. And isn't that partly our beef with Toronto's stewerdship of it's history? That we're too quick to abandon and erase before we've had a chance to cultivate an appreciation?

You live under the Gardiner, presumably by choice. If you don't like it - why not move to one of the other spots in the city that are 100% Gardiner free? Leave the area to people who aren't as precious.

 

[Urban Shocker]

alklay: Surely, if the Gardiner is removed, your cardboard box will get wet when it rains? See, it does serve some purpose after all.

 

[TKTKTK]

One of the other reasons given for removing the Gardiner is that it's under utilized given its capacity. Fair enough. But aren't we trying to increase the population of this part of Toronto by upwards of 10,000? Won't the extra capacity of the Gardiner come in handy then? Especially if we encourage the use of it to bypass surface streets in the core?

I'd sooner see more traffic travel east/west on the Gardiner, than travel along the ground on Lake Shore. Maybe a tunnel would be the best of both worlds, but the scardy-cat in me doesn't really want to travel underground in a little tube with all of Toronto's terrible drivers.

 

[RedRocket191]

One of the other reasons given for removing the Gardiner is that it's under utilized given its capacity. Fair enough. But aren't we trying to increase the population of this part of Toronto by upwards of 10,000? Won't the extra capacity of the Gardiner come in handy then? Especially if we encourage the use of it to bypass surface streets in the core?

But we don't want those 10,000 people to be using the Gardiner. We want them on public transport. We won't be able to get all of them on transit, but reducing the capacity of the roads is a form of transportation demand management (an odd form, but a form none-the-less).

 

[alklay]

alklay: Surely, if the Gardiner is removed, your cardboard box will get wet when it rains? See, it does serve some purpose after all.

True. But I am saving up for a brand new condo in a nice midrise building that will soon occupy the area once reserved for off-ramps.

 

[TKTKTK]

But we don't want those 10,000 people to be using the Gardiner. We want them on public transport. We won't be able to get all of them on transit, but reducing the capacity of the roads is a form of transportation demand management (an odd form, but a form none-the-less).

That's a terrible form. Public transit should be chosen because it's effective, efficient, convenient, and affordable - not because we've made all other choices too unsavory.

Forcing people onto public transit by actively destroying or worsening other services does not improve anything.

 

[alklay]

It's not actually blight though, just like the Ward, or what St. Jamestown tore down, or Regent Park, or Moss Park. It's just a rundown structure that needs some updating and upkeeping. It still serves its purpose, though no longer in a fashionable way. That's really what it comes down to though, an elevated highway is no longer fashionable - so we better get rid of it. I don't think leveling and erasing a large part of our city (and history) is a creative solution to the job of planning. No amount of starchitect landscaping can overcome that.

Wow, you pulled out all the stops in this one. I am just going to point out the obvious: taking down an elevated highway is in no way similar to leveling a neighbourhood to build a monstrosity (ie, St. Jamestown). In fact, its the exact opposite. We are leveling a monstrosity to build a neighbourhood.

And not only is the Gardiner no longer fashionable, its unnecessary in this area.

And the use of the word 'starchitect' is a great buzzword but I haven't seen any calls for 'starchitects.' We can knock down this sucker and make the area more conducive for neighbourhoods, shops, parks and schools, all on our own.

 

[Fair Comment]

Article from The Star today:

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/434236

hoooooly – 8 years after it gets approved. Of which 5 years, or the equivalent of three municipal council terms, is just the study. And this was proposed back when Toronto tried for the Olympics!@!#$!@ With a Liberal federal government likely to support such projects.

Yeeesh.

It is nice to see another waterfront announcement, but has anyone noticed that more than $170m has been sitting idle for 5 or 6 years while yet another TWRC project goes undelivered?

I suspect that this "new" partial approach is not one of the models in the multi-million dollar studies spent on consultants over the last few years - to no avail.

The Toronto Star is reporting that the Waterfront CEO says it will take 8 years to deliver on this (smaller) project for "$200 to 300 miilion". In Waterfront Toronto Talk that means 15 years (or never), plus 3 times the cost.

 

[TKTKTK]

Wow, you pulled out all the stops in this one. I am just going to point out the obvious: taking down an elevated highway is in no way similar to leveling a neighbourhood to build a monstrosity (ie, St. Jamestown). In fact, its the exact opposite. We are leveling a monstrosity to build a neighbourhood.

Except that when they were tearing shit down to build St. Jamestown they likely phrased it the same way you did with the Gardiner. They were tearing down our Monsterous blight, because there was no way we could be modern with all those run down houses around And why should anyone care? They were leveling a monstrosity to build a neighbourhood for young professionals. Turned out well, eh?

And not only is the Gardiner no longer fashionable, its unnecessary in this area.

Which could turn out to be only a temporary state. Given that that part of the Gardiner hardly leads anywhere right now, it still manages 120,000 cars a day. Once the area becomes something again - might that not increase?

And the use of the word 'starchitect' is a great buzzword but I haven't seen any calls for 'starchitects.' We can knock down this sucker and make the area more conducive for neighbourhoods, shops, parks and schools, all on our own.

And we can do all of those things (as we've already done with neighbourhoods like the Esplanade and along Queens Quay) while still leaving the Gardiner in place.