S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"The location of Lakeshore isn't the only reason."
It's the main reason.
It's the main reason.
|
|
|
B
building babel
Guest
A psychological barrier was removed when the Gardiner East was taken down, so we know the effect removing the rest of it will have.
E
Ed007Toronto
Guest
New York's Westside Highway. Formerly elevated as well. When it started to fall down they removed it. Traffic issues did not materialize. Wouldn't the Lakeshore look better like this? And even though the cars do move fast it is much less of a barrier to cross (both physical and psychological) than the Lakeshore/Gardiner is today. My only issue with the Great Street is that it should start at Bathurst.
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
.JPG)
E
El Chico905
Guest
Spending ~ 1 billion dollars to try and fix a collective psychological ailment is not money well spent. Is the Gardiner Ideal? no. Does it do its job? yes. Maybe license graffiti artists to paint the concrete pillars and friendly up lakeshore a bit.
Imagine the rush at its worst, then run from 6:00am to 9:00pm non-stop...it could be worse, I find the 4 minute claim alittle dubious, is that average include off peak times? In low traffic from the humber the trip is only 15 minutes, adding 4 minutes, is a big jump percentage wise. The healthy Toronto economy is caused in part to the Gardiner. Although ugly, the Gardiner's benefits greatly outweigh the negatives.
My main beef is that Toronto does not have the transit capacity to handle this move. Newyork has many north-south Subway and Commuter lines that helped ease traffic problems. It's comparing Oranges to Big Apples...
B
building babel
Guest
As our attitude towards the waterfront evolves, so will our attitude towards psychological barriers that block our full enjoyment of the waterfront. The Gardiner is one.
Since 1972, when Harbourfront was created, Torontonians have had more and more reasons to go down to the lake. It has gradually become one of our playgrounds. It is no longer the depressing, decayed, and declining industrial district it was a generation ago, defined by train tracks, disused port facilities and a few rusty old ships.
I think the Gardiner will become a victim of our higher expectations for the downtown environment, as we do more to make the places where the land meets the lake into significant public spaces that define our city.
Since 1972, when Harbourfront was created, Torontonians have had more and more reasons to go down to the lake. It has gradually become one of our playgrounds. It is no longer the depressing, decayed, and declining industrial district it was a generation ago, defined by train tracks, disused port facilities and a few rusty old ships.
I think the Gardiner will become a victim of our higher expectations for the downtown environment, as we do more to make the places where the land meets the lake into significant public spaces that define our city.
A
AlvinofDiaspar
Guest
El Chico:
First of all, I understand your opposition, but inflating figures to $1B is just not accurate. As to the Gardiner itself, it isn't just a psychological ailment - the structure itself requires constant, costly maintainence, while surrounding land uses suffer as a result of the inefficent way it is designed.
And where do you draw such conclusions from, exactly? By the way, the numbers are available from the presentation I've posted, and they refer to both rushes. In addition, just how would adding 4 minutes to a commute produce a tangible, negative effect, other than the mostly psychological need for speed?
That is non-sensical - reading the presentation, the Gardiner handles only 10% of the traffic in the central area, and during the construction period the Gardiner will remain at 80% of the original capacity. TTC and GO both handles far higher traffic loads, and the former hasn't even reached its' peak ridership back in the late 80s.
AoD
First of all, I understand your opposition, but inflating figures to $1B is just not accurate. As to the Gardiner itself, it isn't just a psychological ailment - the structure itself requires constant, costly maintainence, while surrounding land uses suffer as a result of the inefficent way it is designed.
And where do you draw such conclusions from, exactly? By the way, the numbers are available from the presentation I've posted, and they refer to both rushes. In addition, just how would adding 4 minutes to a commute produce a tangible, negative effect, other than the mostly psychological need for speed?
That is non-sensical - reading the presentation, the Gardiner handles only 10% of the traffic in the central area, and during the construction period the Gardiner will remain at 80% of the original capacity. TTC and GO both handles far higher traffic loads, and the former hasn't even reached its' peak ridership back in the late 80s.
AoD
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
I'm not buying into the whole 'psychological barrier' argument as much as most people. I'd say it was more of a barrier east of the Don and still is west of the CNE. Maybe in isolation the Gardiner is ugly, but it is truly not much of a visual barrier right downtown, especially compared to the raillands, anyway, and it comes nowhere close to severing the area to the degree that Lakeshore currently does...it's a bit of a scapegoat for waterfront problems and for symbolizing 905ers clogging our roads and necessitating more parking facilities than would be needed if commuters took transit. Seeing the sheer cliffs of the CBD appear as you drive along the Gardiner is a sublime, hyperurban experience...it just won't be the same sitting at a red light on Lakeshore.
Yet, the Gardiner + Lakeshore combo as is is truly an unbearable eyesore/barrier that must be dealt with. The coolest solution would be to bury Lakeshore and keep the Gardiner, but this city would never do that. I'm not sure I'm looking forward to a massive 10 lane boulevard + median, and I'm gonna be a little pessimistic. There's endless complaints here about Yonge in NYCC and University Ave., and Queen's Quay's admitted awfulness will soon be improved...of course, there's always the question: do we need two boulevards right next to each other right next to a grand waterfront promenade?
Removing the Gardiner won't mean people will stream south of the raillands, it may mean nothing more than 1. it could be marginally harder to commute by car into downtown (which is not the end of the world and could be completely offset by marginal transit improvements) and 2. it could allow nice urban developments to be built along a nicely improved Lakeshore, which does sound nice if pulled off (which is entirely possible if the West Don Lands redevelopment model is followed).
The very best solution would be to tunnel the Gardiner while improving Lakeshore at the same time - but not turning it into a 10 lane monster (edit - more like 8 lanes + streetcar ROW, I bet). I would lose so much hope for this city if the opportunity to build a subway line simultaneously, in the manner suggested by unimaginative2, is passed over because of cowardice and a complete and utter lack of vision and foresight. But really, I expect them to do exactly that...imagine how many "Clean and Beautiful" plaques they'd be able to install along that grand new Lakeshore median!
Yet, the Gardiner + Lakeshore combo as is is truly an unbearable eyesore/barrier that must be dealt with. The coolest solution would be to bury Lakeshore and keep the Gardiner, but this city would never do that. I'm not sure I'm looking forward to a massive 10 lane boulevard + median, and I'm gonna be a little pessimistic. There's endless complaints here about Yonge in NYCC and University Ave., and Queen's Quay's admitted awfulness will soon be improved...of course, there's always the question: do we need two boulevards right next to each other right next to a grand waterfront promenade?
Removing the Gardiner won't mean people will stream south of the raillands, it may mean nothing more than 1. it could be marginally harder to commute by car into downtown (which is not the end of the world and could be completely offset by marginal transit improvements) and 2. it could allow nice urban developments to be built along a nicely improved Lakeshore, which does sound nice if pulled off (which is entirely possible if the West Don Lands redevelopment model is followed).
The very best solution would be to tunnel the Gardiner while improving Lakeshore at the same time - but not turning it into a 10 lane monster (edit - more like 8 lanes + streetcar ROW, I bet). I would lose so much hope for this city if the opportunity to build a subway line simultaneously, in the manner suggested by unimaginative2, is passed over because of cowardice and a complete and utter lack of vision and foresight. But really, I expect them to do exactly that...imagine how many "Clean and Beautiful" plaques they'd be able to install along that grand new Lakeshore median!
E
El Chico905
Guest
~750million in 2006, could very reasonably be ~ 1 billion by the time it's finnished. The costs on these projects a always lowballed, for every project that you can think of that come in on budget, there are 10 that go over.
With regards to land uses, it's too late, the condos are built or are planned, and I highly doubt that by the time the project is complete, the condos will be able to open onto the new 10 lane artery.
There is a opportunity cost to travel time. Same as if there was a plan for Spadina Street Car to take 4 minutes longer to go from bloor to union. It's time that could be spend doing more productive things. Why is the "psychological need for speed" worth less then the psychological need for access to the waterfront?
The Gardiner carries 25% of all Cars, The 10% includes all people on TTC and GO. I would be great if a large portion switched to GO, but, it's not realistic to expect it.
The GO trains I've been on are standing room by the time they get into Toronto and the parking lots fill up really quickly. Plus the Bloor trains from Etobicoke get really packed in the morning, a second route downtown would be beneficial. I have no idea how people dealt with the TTC in the lates 80's when it was so busy, but from my experience if there was more frequent service and more options I would support the plan (Which GO is working on with the 3rd track).
The Gardiner, is an easy scapegoat of the real barriers to the waterfront, would it be nice if it was taken down and everything went according to plan? sure. Are the costs and consequences prohibitive? In my opinion, you betcha. I personally like the idea, it's the costs, and the reasons behind it that I have reservations about.
A
adma
Guest
Though it's arguable whether its grade-level replacement is much less of a psychological barrier. (It also illuminates the wisdom behind the "it ain't the Gardiner that's the problem, it's what's underneath it" argument...)
P
prometheus the supremo
Guest
it would have been easier to deal with this issue and have great results if it would have happened years ago. any attempt will be half assed now. there are condo's that have blank walls facing the gardiner and such a street scape would be bleak.
they should have torn it down years ago when there was lots of land. they could have divided the new roadway (into one way only sections) with a city block or more and put buildings between so it wouldn't look wide. this is still possible in some areas but not in the core.
i know the eastern section of the gardiner looks nice compared to the past but it's too wide and feels like highway 7. it really isn't that much better than before IMO, just looks a little greener.
i know it sounds like a good idea in some sense but if it's not done right, we will regret it for our lifetimes.
they should have torn it down years ago when there was lots of land. they could have divided the new roadway (into one way only sections) with a city block or more and put buildings between so it wouldn't look wide. this is still possible in some areas but not in the core.
i know the eastern section of the gardiner looks nice compared to the past but it's too wide and feels like highway 7. it really isn't that much better than before IMO, just looks a little greener.
i know it sounds like a good idea in some sense but if it's not done right, we will regret it for our lifetimes.
D
dashingdan
Guest
As has been said already, the price tag on something like this could easily inflate to one billion.
With that said, imagine what else a billion dollars could build? It could add several stops to the Sheppard Line, or a few stops to re-start the Eglinton West Line, or replace the Scarborough RT with a subway. Why remove commuter choice when you can add choice in a better way in another part of the city. The Gardiner is important to those who live in Etobicoke (who are not 905ers, I might add). Granted, living in Mississauga, the Gardiner is important to have. Basically anyone west of Yonge uses the Gardiner. An at-grade alternative just doesn't strike me as a good idea. Even a tunnel won't provide the magnificent view that the Gardiner provides.
The Gardiner issue really seems to be based more on where someone lives than anything else, moreso than any other city issue.
With that said, imagine what else a billion dollars could build? It could add several stops to the Sheppard Line, or a few stops to re-start the Eglinton West Line, or replace the Scarborough RT with a subway. Why remove commuter choice when you can add choice in a better way in another part of the city. The Gardiner is important to those who live in Etobicoke (who are not 905ers, I might add). Granted, living in Mississauga, the Gardiner is important to have. Basically anyone west of Yonge uses the Gardiner. An at-grade alternative just doesn't strike me as a good idea. Even a tunnel won't provide the magnificent view that the Gardiner provides.
The Gardiner issue really seems to be based more on where someone lives than anything else, moreso than any other city issue.
A
afransen TO
Guest
Because the time to fix the Gardiner corridor is now, or rather 5 - 10 years ago. If we do those other things first, the Gardiner corridor will be built-up and tearing it down would leave a street with a bunch of buildings that have turned their backs.
There's a time for this... and it's now.
There's a time for this... and it's now.
M
MetroMan1000
Guest
dashingdan: you make it sound like the Gardiner will disappear in Etobicoke.
Reality: it won't. The Gardiner will remain an entrance point into the city up to the place where most people exit/enter anyway: Spadina.
How many people do you know travel cross town through downtown? I can't put my finger on many situations where people would need to drive from say Mississauga to Scarborough and not use the 401 instead.
With this proposal, you'll have your highway to the city. Once you get here, you'll merge into normal traffic like you do now, just this time you'll be on a grand avenue on Lakeshore.
There will also be the Front St extension for those needing to get off on the west end.
Reality: it won't. The Gardiner will remain an entrance point into the city up to the place where most people exit/enter anyway: Spadina.
How many people do you know travel cross town through downtown? I can't put my finger on many situations where people would need to drive from say Mississauga to Scarborough and not use the 401 instead.
With this proposal, you'll have your highway to the city. Once you get here, you'll merge into normal traffic like you do now, just this time you'll be on a grand avenue on Lakeshore.
There will also be the Front St extension for those needing to get off on the west end.
A
adma
Guest
Well, there is a situation (esp. if you're coming from S Mississauga/Oakville/Burlington, at least outside of rush-hour situations): if it's perceived that the 427/401 combo is scarcely more or less unnerving than the Gardiner/DVP combo.
Really; it's closer to a draw between the two options than it may appear at first...
C
CanadianNational
Guest
I have to giggle over the idea that the Gardiner is not a barrier to the lakefront because it's 'elevated', and the psychological or emotive effect of the thing, both in form and function, is either pleasant or unnoticable. It is basely functional, graceless engineering, built on the cheap (even at the time), and nearly continuously derelict.
The railway lines which many people claim also bar lakefront access at least have a faint air of industrial and historical romance to them. The passageways underneath are not always pretty, but they are straightforward, without on and off ramps eating up extra space, blocking straight passage to the lake, confusing safety issues, and delaying pedestrian travel.
The elevation of the Gardiner also presents problems aesthetically and environmentally, in the enormous swaths of unredeemable dead land underneath it. Not easy to develop, nor pleasant to walk through. To walk to Harbourfront from Cityplace down Spadina is an insult to being a pedestrian, and then some.
The Gardiner also eats up far too much space for what it does in sections, namely, with the enormous extra ramps between Bathurst and Sherbourne. An expanded grade level road would not take up this much groundspace, nor be nearly as oppressive. Some people say: keep the Gardiner and get rid of lakeshore and the ramps...but a Gardiner without ramps into the city is a Gardiner with no real reason to exist. Even then, it would still be ugly, and require enormous maintenence costs.
I love aspects of the Gardiner - namely, driving on it. Some of my fondest memories of Toronto are the exhilarating entrance into the city along it, especially as you approach downtown along the Exhibition Place stretch - it can be magical. However, as a pedestrian in the city now - I have to agree that it is an incongruous, ineffective solution whose time is past and it should come down as planned ("Great Street") here.
The railway lines which many people claim also bar lakefront access at least have a faint air of industrial and historical romance to them. The passageways underneath are not always pretty, but they are straightforward, without on and off ramps eating up extra space, blocking straight passage to the lake, confusing safety issues, and delaying pedestrian travel.
The elevation of the Gardiner also presents problems aesthetically and environmentally, in the enormous swaths of unredeemable dead land underneath it. Not easy to develop, nor pleasant to walk through. To walk to Harbourfront from Cityplace down Spadina is an insult to being a pedestrian, and then some.
The Gardiner also eats up far too much space for what it does in sections, namely, with the enormous extra ramps between Bathurst and Sherbourne. An expanded grade level road would not take up this much groundspace, nor be nearly as oppressive. Some people say: keep the Gardiner and get rid of lakeshore and the ramps...but a Gardiner without ramps into the city is a Gardiner with no real reason to exist. Even then, it would still be ugly, and require enormous maintenence costs.
I love aspects of the Gardiner - namely, driving on it. Some of my fondest memories of Toronto are the exhilarating entrance into the city along it, especially as you approach downtown along the Exhibition Place stretch - it can be magical. However, as a pedestrian in the city now - I have to agree that it is an incongruous, ineffective solution whose time is past and it should come down as planned ("Great Street") here.