Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[adma]

It is basely functional, graceless engineering, built on the cheap (even at the time), and nearly continuously derelict.

Though by that equation, what elevated highway at the time, anywhere, *wasn't* so-called "built on the cheap"? Utilitarian was the way to go, and it was perceived (at least by those who were doing the planning) that the beauty was in the modernity and in the utility--and this was before anyone really had a clue (especially in salt-o-philic winter climes like Toronto's) how badly these urban Godzillas would weather over time.

And the irony is that Toronto's 50s/60s municipal superhighways (Gardiner, DVP, Spadina/Allen) reflected *more* of a self-conscious "design" sense than the provincially-built 400-series--though maybe from a functional standpoint, that was also their pitfall...

 

[CanadianNational]

Oh, I love a well-formed and inventive functional utility. Just not cheap-ass drab ones. One of the saving graces of modernism was to be how subtly and gorgeously (even spiritually!) form and function were to be highly fused together to make a unified object of rational beauty. Compared to this heady notion, the Gardiner seems rather a let down.

 

[bizorky]

This is one of those debates where those opposed to getting rid of the Gardiner try to come up with good reasons why it should stay up. Once it would be torn down they would, of course, always have been big supporters of its destruction from the get go.

Defending this highway solely as a through-way for many suburban drivers is a very limited argument. Some type of roadway would replace the Gardiner, so it is not as if there would be an elimination of automobile traffic from this route. Those who want it to remain a highway are not really concerned about its effect on that part of the city. Their eyes are fixed on the road.

 

[SD2]

Those who want it to remain a highway are not really concerned about its effect on that part of the city. Their eyes are fixed on the road.

Of course - when I mention support for tearing down the Gardiner to my suburban friends they just look at me with complete shock. All that concerns them is a drive that's convenient as possible.

It's funny actually...whenever I'll mention the need for Mississauga to be more transit friendly and less car dependent, some of them try to slag me for trying to change their established way of life, arguing that Mississauga was made to be a car dependent suburb where everyone drives from the beginning. When it comes to the Gardiner, however, they see no problem negatively affecting our 'way of life'.

 

[El Chico905]

The Gardiner does provide a tangible benefit, in getting commuters downtown. The reasons for removal are intangible...it's so ugly that Torontonians don't want to visit a condo lined waterfront. This are the logic of removing a 6 lane elevated highway in favour of a 10 lane surface highway to be less of a barrier.

 

[building babel]

The world changes and people often have problems coming to terms with that. Some in Mississauga obviously think their city should remain car dependent just because it was "founded" that way, just as some people probably think the purpose of the elevated Gardiner is to give them nice views of the pretty downtown towers as they speed across the waterfront to get to somewhere more important.

But elevated expressways aren't being built in the downtown cores of First World cities any more - in fact they're taking them down as many of those cities evolve.

Our Gardiner reflects a way of thinking about what you can get away with building in the downtown that bit the dust when Bill Davis cancelled Spadina in 1971. The embarrassing presence of this relic isn't just a reminder of discredited values, it is an impediment to moving on, turning the page, reinventing ourselves or whatever you want to call it - just as the Stump was a painful reminder of many years of stalled commercial office development.

 

[CapitalSeven]

To read this is to weep. No wonder Toronto didn't get the Olympics in 96. Oh, sorry, 08. Oops, both. Or Expo. In ... what year? Umm. Whenever.

People and even newspapers are going on the record for preserving the rottingest, evilest hulk in Ontario (sans parler de Mike Harris) and despite an engineering report and some telling photographic evidence, you think the jury is out?

And you whinge about Barcelona, and you whinge about Madrid, but when push comes to spend, you want 750 million more spent so that it takes 3 minutes and a few stairs less to get downtown from Scarborough, but that's way too much to spend to redefine downtown and the waterfront?

The peeping sound you hear is the world's attention passing Toronto by. Hope you loved the sound.

 

[El Chico905]

The peeping sound you hear is the world's attention passing Toronto by. Hope you loved the sound.

Nope, that peeping sound was my microwave. My lunch is ready

 

[allabootmatt]

I have found much of the opposition to the plan strange, in that it is only proposed to take down the highway east of Spadina. Other than the (small) amount of through drivers, who would that effect? It would literally be the difference of a few blocks on street level vs. freeway for drivers headed to the core. In this sense what is being proposed is much more analogous to the set-up of the Bonaventure in Montreal, which last time I checked was still a pretty effective artery into the centre there.

 

[alklay]

"The Gardiner does provide a tangible benefit, in getting commuters downtown."

The QEW gets commuters downtown. A few new roads will take care of the rest of the trip (if the Gardiner is taken down).

Other than the huge cost, I have yet to read one convincing argument as to why the sucker should not be taken down. And I bet we could figure out a way to assume the cost.

Bring her down!!!

 

[samplain]

It needs to come down, the design and idea is dated 50 years ago in highway planning infancy.

#3(tunnel) cost too much, take too long, security and safety.

#2 A great street!

(re:cost) available land and increase in property value will add more people, business and tax base in the core for years to come.

This is a decision of the people of Toronto and not the majority of surrounding commuters that are against this.

 

[adma]

Oh, I love a well-formed and inventive functional utility. Just not cheap-ass drab ones. One of the saving graces of modernism was to be how subtly and gorgeously (even spiritually!) form and function were to be highly fused together to make a unified object of rational beauty. Compared to this heady notion, the Gardiner seems rather a let down.

Note: I wasn't defending the Gardiner per se--I was just trying to channel the industrial film/newsreel rationale of those who created it. *They* didn't think it was cheap-ass and drab; or at least, they didn't want *us* to think it was cheap-ass and drab. This was auto-age modernity, bringing Toronto into the 1960s and beyond. That, plain and simple, was its "beauty"--plain and simple--and better that than the archaic un-plain-simplicity of, say, the Prince Edward Viaduct. It was "of our time". (Again, I'm only "channeling".)

As for the present, never forget that underlying at least the mayor's hesitancy over removing the Gardiner is Boston's experience with the Big Dig--so from his POV, it's almost a paradoxical "bread not circuses" circumstance...

 

[scarberiankhatru]

"And you whinge about Barcelona, and you whinge about Madrid, but when push comes to spend, you want 750 million more spent so that it takes 3 minutes and a few stairs less to get downtown from Scarborough, but that's way too much to spend to redefine downtown and the waterfront?"

Even if it's not, this seems somewhat targeted at my positions. I'd like to see the Gardiner torn down and replaced with a tunnel. This way, we can easily and cheaply get a simultaneous new subway line downtown and then we won't need to double the width of Lakeshore.

 

[Degnaw]

On this thread I heard many different arguments, many of which make a good point, but to sum them all up, there is no one plan that can make everyone happy.

In my opinion, they should go with the plan where they build stuff under the highway (It negates the negative impact of the lakeshore under gardiner and doesnt make the road ten lanes wide). Or, they should build a sunken highway (not quite burying it), which I didn't see mentioned in the report.

 

[wyliepoon]

Montreal highway overpass collapse (Yahoo News)

Is it a coincidence that this happens while we are all talking about whether the Gardiner should come down or not? I can certainly see somebody over at the Star or another media trying to link this collapse with the Gardiner. It adds a new perspective to the discussion- now the issue of the Gardiner is no longer one about urban design or connecting the city to the lake, but one of life and death. Scenes of the earthquakes in Oakland and Kobe come to mind.