andrewpmk
Senior Member
Early on Saturday morning it might be OK but by the afternoon, it definitely tends to get congested.
|
|
|
- Status
Early on Saturday morning it might be OK but by the afternoon, it definitely tends to get congested.
JayBeeGooner
Active Member
Who cares that you were inconvenienced for a few hours? The Ride for Heart is a great event Give it a try sometime.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Woah!
Clewes referred to this in his talk from January.
1. Improve – architectsAlliance and Diller Scofidio + Retro – A view of the public and cultural pavilions under the Gardiner
2. Improve – Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg + Bjarke Ingels Group – New park landscape overlooks the Gardiner
3. Remove – James Corner Field Operations – A seasonally changing landscape replaces a fixed concrete environment
4. Remove – Office of Metropolitan Architecture – Lake Shore is an 8-lane at-grade urban boulevard lined with buildings on both sides
5. Replace – Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture – A 6-lane Lake Shore Boulevard and streetcar right-of-way are built at grade
6. Replace – West 8 + DTAH + Cecil Beaumond AGU – A new expressway is built up against the rail corridor
Source
Clewes referred to this in his talk from January.
1. Improve – architectsAlliance and Diller Scofidio + Retro – A view of the public and cultural pavilions under the Gardiner
2. Improve – Kuwabara Payne McKenna Blumberg + Bjarke Ingels Group – New park landscape overlooks the Gardiner
3. Remove – James Corner Field Operations – A seasonally changing landscape replaces a fixed concrete environment
4. Remove – Office of Metropolitan Architecture – Lake Shore is an 8-lane at-grade urban boulevard lined with buildings on both sides
5. Replace – Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture – A 6-lane Lake Shore Boulevard and streetcar right-of-way are built at grade
6. Replace – West 8 + DTAH + Cecil Beaumond AGU – A new expressway is built up against the rail corridor
Source
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I like a simple buried version. They should bury it with no exits until it re-emerges and meets the old version of the highway. doing that keeps it on the cheap (relatively) and allows for a completely redeveloped surface. Cut & cover the entire length.
Fred.S
Active Member
Agreed. Traffic will be chaos for a while, but just get it done, quickly and cheaply.
I will say this though if they Gardiner gets buried, as ugly as the thing is, I love the drive on it into the core (when there's less traffic that is). Great views of the city...
kEiThZ
Superstar
1) It won't be cheap.
2) The views are actually a big draw of the Gardiner to anybody I talk to.
In my opinion, the only way the Gardiner is eliminated is by burying thing. Anything that smacks of a massive reduction in road capacity in the core (like the Miller plan), will draw a strong public reaction. On the other hand, it might actually be possible to sell a tolled tunnel to the public.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Presentation from the June 13 WT EA Public Meeting:
http://gardinereast.ca/sites/defaul...diner East Public Forum #1 - Presentation.pdf
___
I think all the proposed schemes have ideas that could be used (and definitely like how OMA thinks big). Quite liked the Diller + Scofidio scheme as well.
AoD
http://gardinereast.ca/sites/defaul...diner East Public Forum #1 - Presentation.pdf
___
I think all the proposed schemes have ideas that could be used (and definitely like how OMA thinks big). Quite liked the Diller + Scofidio scheme as well.
AoD
Last edited:
dunkalunk
Senior Member
I am partial to the Rem Koolhaus proposal (Removal). Having the Subway swing down from Front to LSB would also create a great opportunity to better serve the Donlands with stations at Don/Lakshore and Carlaw/Lakeshore and would probably be far easier to construct than running under the active rail corridor.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
When people say "Gardiner East", are they talking about the expressway, east of Yonge?
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
Torontoist has a post on the Gardiner today: http://torontoist.com/2013/06/what-shall-we-do-with-the-gardiner/
I'm sure this has been mentioned in this thread before, but it is extremely frustrating that where the railway is underground, the Gardiner will stay elevated, and where the railway is elevated, the Gardiner could potentially be buried or left at grade. Either way, we'll never have clear sight lines to the central waterfront.
I'm sure this has been mentioned in this thread before, but it is extremely frustrating that where the railway is underground, the Gardiner will stay elevated, and where the railway is elevated, the Gardiner could potentially be buried or left at grade. Either way, we'll never have clear sight lines to the central waterfront.
drum118
Superstar
The Gardiner has nothing to do with the sight line of the waterfront for the past few decades, since condos where blocking the view and only going to get worse once the whole front is redevelop. You can't see the waterfront even from Queens Quay if you are drive on it these days because of the buildings..
The eastern section need to come down and replace with a 4 lane road for 2 way traffic as well having bike lanes on it.
I am talking east of Spadina.
Silence&Motion
Senior Member
I was talking more about the possibility of looking down Yonge, Bay, Jarvis or one of the other N/S streets in the downtown core and be able to see the lake as its terminus as it slopes down toward the shore.
Ideally University Ave should have been routed straight toward the lake, so you would have a clear path from Queen's Park to the waterfront, with a grand traffic circle where it meets Lake Shore Blvd (with no Gardiner overhead). Oh well. One can dream.
diminutive
Active Member
I think each of the proposals by Diller + Scofidio, OMA and Adrian Smith are highly attractive. Oddly, my preferences don't seem confined to any particular category (improve, replaces, remove...)
The worst proposal seems to be DTAH's boulevard. Replacing the Gardiner with a 'grand boulevard' would be terrible. The area would feel desolate and windswept! KPMB's looks nice at first glance, but I suspect there is a strong element of renderponrism with those buildings.
As a general, vague comment, I think the proposals which deal solely with the Gardiner tend to be the weakest while those which more completely re-imagine the corridor tend to be stronger. By the later I mean proposals which try to consider everything from the rail corridor to the waterfront to how the area connects with the larger city. I think that's recognition that the area's current shortcomings go well beyond the simple presence of the Gardiner.
Proposals which simply address that one component, even if they involve very dramatic steps like removal or building a tunnel, seem very limited.
Beyond that I'm not sure how much its worth commenting on specifics, given that these are very notional proposals.
A few questions would be:
The worst proposal seems to be DTAH's boulevard. Replacing the Gardiner with a 'grand boulevard' would be terrible. The area would feel desolate and windswept! KPMB's looks nice at first glance, but I suspect there is a strong element of renderponrism with those buildings.
As a general, vague comment, I think the proposals which deal solely with the Gardiner tend to be the weakest while those which more completely re-imagine the corridor tend to be stronger. By the later I mean proposals which try to consider everything from the rail corridor to the waterfront to how the area connects with the larger city. I think that's recognition that the area's current shortcomings go well beyond the simple presence of the Gardiner.
Proposals which simply address that one component, even if they involve very dramatic steps like removal or building a tunnel, seem very limited.
Beyond that I'm not sure how much its worth commenting on specifics, given that these are very notional proposals.
A few questions would be:
- What is the cost range for a simple, shallow tunnel like in the Adrian Smith proposal?
- Would a DLR along Lakeshore (OMA) be feasible? How would it connect to the YUS? Would a DRL even really address much of the travel market the Gardiner does?
- How feasible would the 'second downtown' in the OMA proposal be economically?
leopetr
Active Member
A relief line along Lakeshore would be useless. The local demand can be easily handled by a new streetcar line, while the regional node that needs to be served is at King and Bay.
Also, Metrolinx wants to divert passengers away from Union, not drive more passengers to Union. See Union Station 2031 Study. Connecting a relief line to Union would undermine this goal.
Not feasible. Downtown business areas are driven by clustering. Accounting firms want to be next to the law firms who want to be next to the finance firms.
If you want to create a second downtown, North York City Center, Scarborough Town Centre, or any number of other locations have a multi-decade head start.
Best case scenario would be a business park, perhaps one with loft-like offices rather than traditional business park wasteland.
- Status