Toronto CityPlace Puente de Luz Bridge | ?m | ?s | Concord Adex | Francisco Gazitua

With a single span bridge the bridge could have been located in line with Portland St. and Dan Leckie Way. However, that option was not feasible due to costs and space to build the support columns at either ends (larger columns would have been required), particularly on the Front St. side. The bridge was shifted east so that the support column can be accommodated safely in the middle of the rail corridor. I believe it was also constructed when the when one of the railway track flyovers was being built.

As for stairs on the south end: sure, they would be great, but it'll be what, an extra 100 feet to walk? That's like 10 seconds for the average, able-bodied person. Seriously, it'll take less time than it takes to write down all this negative hyperbole and moaning, and use less energy too. The exercise will do people good. Architecturally, it's a dud; but it's a new connection across the rail corridor solely for pedestrians and cyclists, and that alone outweighs all else.
 
marcus_a_j said:
With a single span bridge the bridge could have been located in line with Portland St. and Dan Leckie Way. However, that option was not feasible due to costs and space to build the support columns at either ends (larger columns would have been required), particularly on the Front St. side. The bridge was shifted east so that the support column can be accommodated safely in the middle of the rail corridor. I believe it was also constructed when the when one of the railway track flyovers was being built.

As for stairs on the south end: sure, they would be great, but it'll be what, an extra 100 feet to walk? That's like 10 seconds for the average, able-bodied person. Seriously, it'll take less time than it takes to write down all this negative hyperbole and moaning, and use less energy too. The exercise will do people good. Architecturally, it's a dud; but it's a new connection across the rail corridor solely for pedestrians and cyclists, and that alone outweighs all else.
Click to expand...

In that case, why bother having a bridge at all, since once you get to the start of the ramp, you are literally a 20 second walk from the Bathurst Street bridge?
 
To increase our mid-block connections in an accommodating and safe manner that encourages active transportation uses. I don't recall seeing any stairs proposed for the Fort York Pedestrian bridge, which is even more windy and serpentine-shaped (and significantly more expensive with more space available for stairs). Should UT hold a protest to demand stairs when it eventually gets built (in whatever incarnation occurs)?
 
marcus_a_j said:
To increase our mid-block connections in an accommodating and safe manner that encourages active transportation uses. I don't recall seeing any stairs proposed for the Fort York Pedestrian bridge, which is even more windy and serpentine-shaped (and significantly more expensive with more space available for stairs). Should UT hold a protest to demand stairs when it eventually gets built (in whatever incarnation occurs)?
Click to expand...

In the case of the Fort York bridge there is no need for stairs. The arc of the bridge itself is the ramp. The serpentine shape is where it gets it's strength and aesthetic interest, so there is no waste there either.
 
neubilder said:
In the case of the Fort York bridge there is no need for stairs. The arc of the bridge itself is the ramp. The serpentine shape is where it gets it's strength and aesthetic interest, so there is no waste there either.
Click to expand...

Exactly, there is no need for stairs. This applies to both the Fort York or CityPlace pedestrian bridges. I am not making an argument on the aesthetics of the CP or FY bridges, more on the utility of the bridges themselves. Both serve a purpose which is to provide more connections between the neighbourhoods, paths, and parks on either sides of the railway tracks for pedestrians and cyclists.
 
marcus_a_j said:
Exactly, there is no need for stairs. This applies to both the Fort York or CityPlace pedestrian bridges. I am not making an argument on the aesthetics of the CP or FY bridges, more on the utility of the bridges themselves. Both serve a purpose which is to provide more connections between the neighbourhoods, paths, and parks on either sides of the railway tracks for pedestrians and cyclists.
Click to expand...

Yes, the path leading to the bridge is a winding path, but there is nothing stopping people from taking a short cut and avoiding the winding path altogether in the case of the FY bridge. Ill bet you $1 Million that the grass will be worn out in the first year from most people avoiding the pathway and looking for the quickest route to get onto the bridge.

It happens everywhere that paths are laid. People avoid the path if it is not convenient. This isn't anything new and happens everywhere. (Canoe Landing itself has a path that has been worn in by people, where no path was built, on the South West corner of the hill)

We should be accommodating everyone, whether it be leisurely strollers, or people who are using the bridge to commute. The current ramp arrangement does not do this.
 
Tuscani01 said:
Yes, the path leading to the bridge is a winding path, but there is nothing stopping people from taking a short cut and avoiding the winding path altogether in the case of the FY bridge. Ill bet you $1 Million that the grass will be worn out in the first year from most people avoiding the pathway and looking for the quickest route to get onto the bridge.

It happens everywhere that paths are laid. People avoid the path if it is not convenient. This isn't anything new and happens everywhere. (Canoe Landing itself has a path that has been worn in by people, where no path was built, on the South West corner of the hill)

We should be accommodating everyone, whether it be leisurely strollers, or people who are using the bridge to commute. The current ramp arrangement does not do this.
Click to expand...

If there is a shorter path available then people will take it. Here, there is only the ramp. Few people will jump over the railing to avoid the ramp, which is the only other available option. The fact that it is there and meets the ODA standards is proof it accommodates everyone. Obviously the extra 10 seconds (or 20 since you'll have to backtrack a little bit, oh dear!!) is way too much time. How about we take a page of out Las Vegas' playbook and build overpassess with ramps, stairs, escalators and elevators at all of our major intersections because it takes too long to wait to cross the street because of a red light*. Man, if only we could plan our pedestrian infrastructure like Vegas...

Perhaps it's just me. I must not always be in a rush and only looking at the bigger picture. Clearly many here are way too passionate for stairs, or they're just looking for more reasons to blame Concord for being too cheap.

* No that's not the real reason those overpasses were built, they were built for pedestrian safety and to avoid crossing LVB at street level.
 
marcus_a_j said:
If there is a shorter path available then people will take it. Here, there is only the ramp. Few people will jump over the railing to avoid the ramp, which is the only other available option. The fact that it is there and meets the ODA standards is proof it accommodates everyone. Obviously the extra 10 seconds (or 20 since you'll have to backtrack a little bit, oh dear!!) is way too much time. How about we take a page of out Las Vegas' playbook and build overpassess with ramps, stairs, escalators and elevators at all of our major intersections because it takes too long to wait to cross the street because of a red light*. Man, if only we could plan our pedestrian infrastructure like Vegas...

Perhaps it's just me. I must not always be in a rush and only looking at the bigger picture. Clearly many here are way too passionate for stairs, or they're just looking for more reasons to blame Concord for being too cheap.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if you notice. But south of Spadina, people are suppose to cross Bremner/Fort York Blvd to get down to Queens Quay. But because of the traffic wait, some people rather walk down Spadina (on the west side) and jay walk across the onramp and the none pedestrian lakeshore blvd than walk down Spadina (on the east side).

Same issue here. If people were given a choice, people would prefer the stairs leading up to the bridge than having to walk to the ODA ramp. It's an inconvenience. The bridge is there people have more options of crossing it. Right now, Bathurst isn't even open to Fort York Blvd and probably won't be for another 3 years. With all that walking around, one might as well walk east to Spadina and back track west to get to Bathurst. Cuz now people on the east have to walk west to get on the ramp, walk across, walk east to get off the ramp and walk back west again. A bridge is suppose to make life easier for people, not difficult.
 
AKS said:
I'm not sure if you notice. But south of Spadina, people are suppose to cross Bremner/Fort York Blvd to get down to Queens Quay. But because of the traffic wait, some people rather walk down Spadina (on the west side) and jay walk across the onramp and the none pedestrian lakeshore blvd than walk down Spadina (on the east side).

Same issue here. If people were given a choice, people would prefer the stairs leading up to the bridge than having to walk to the ODA ramp. It's an inconvenience. The bridge is there people have more options of crossing it. Right now, Bathurst isn't even open to Fort York Blvd and probably won't be for another 3 years. With all that walking around, one might as well walk east to Spadina and back track west to get to Bathurst. Cuz now people on the east have to walk west to get on the ramp, walk across, walk east to get off the ramp and walk back west again. A bridge is suppose to make life easier for people, not difficult.
Click to expand...

It's a hundred extra feet walking of uninterrupted glory. No cars. No traffic lights. No worries.
 
Any upcoming requests for density increases to final phases at CityPlace should awarded dependent upon Section 37 money for building the stairs at either ends of the bridge.

42
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top