generalcanada
Senior Member
Im also going to take a backseat to this roller coaster ride.
We will see in 2028 when it's open if people want it
Toronto Ontario Place | ?m | ?s | Infrastructure ON
- Thread starter vistaway
- Start date
We will see in 2028 when it's open if people want it
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
Fair enough!
picard102
Senior Member
The objections are, "I don't like what they are building there". Unless you're going to build housing on the site, a water park is better than nothing.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
If I had proof Kinga Surma was a TNG fan, I'd find a lot more of this thread comprehensible. Until then, I'm going to hope /assume that even she and whoever reviewed the RFP looked at one of the most important sites the Province owns and gave more thought to the decision than, "well, it's better than nothing!"
(I assume here that "nothing" would be defined as a well-used passive park set amid iconic, if neglected, buildings)
Who could possibly assail such logic, especially since the government is doing such a bang up job on housing, the only use that might have trumped "better than nothing"? Maybe they'll even hit their 2030 housing targets by 2045, depending how many Greenbelt sites either get put back and/or result in corruption charges. .
In the meantime, those of us demanding better for this site and its return on investment should reconsider; after all, it's better than nothing,though I hope Therme's PR team can maybe workshop something a bit spicier.
(I assume here that "nothing" would be defined as a well-used passive park set amid iconic, if neglected, buildings)
Who could possibly assail such logic, especially since the government is doing such a bang up job on housing, the only use that might have trumped "better than nothing"? Maybe they'll even hit their 2030 housing targets by 2045, depending how many Greenbelt sites either get put back and/or result in corruption charges. .
In the meantime, those of us demanding better for this site and its return on investment should reconsider; after all, it's better than nothing,though I hope Therme's PR team can maybe workshop something a bit spicier.
Natika33
Active Member
To each their own, but I quite like the new design. It's going to be fun to climb up that hill for great views of Toronto's skyline, the lake, & the rest of the OP structures. If they hold fireworks or drone shows that would be an awesome perch. And I happen to feel that soaking in hot water in winter while looking out over the frozen scenery will be a very special experience reminiscent of some remote hot springs in Japan yet even better. Also, apart from Allen Gardens, where else can I be surrounded by greenery indoors in January? I get that there are a lot of people here who see little value in a water park, or think that a spa inland with no view would be better somehow, but I find the location and design very meaningful. Rail against the parking all day - I agree it's foolish & unnecessary. Protest the move of the Ontario Science Centre - I agree it creates more problems than it solves. But please spare a wee thought for those of us who are legitimately looking forward to a revitalized west island and this design in particular. It's far more than "better than nothing" to me.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
Fair enough and I can agree to disagree.
As I said a few posts back, I don't think it's any one thing. If it was just the building design or use that would be one thing but it's also the RFP and engagement processes and the Science Centre and the climate issues and the loss of greenery (right, it's being revitalized?) and the parking and, and, and...
I don't think you can disentangle those things because it will be pretty and fun to visit.
Yes, it's simplistic to say, "Well, they're dropping a big spa on this amazing site," or to be dogmatic about nothing changing from the present condition but I find the whole thing concerning, start to finish and even if it's a lovely spa with indoor greenery - which it may well be (though a "very special experience" comparable ot natural hot springs seems optimistic to me), at the end of the day, whatever the positives might end up being, don't think it's worth what's giving up. Others clearly beg to differ.
picard102
Senior Member
More ad hominems. Really reaching now.
TJ O'Pootertoot
Senior Member
There was clearly some heavy sarcasm but no actual personal attacks, unless un-seriously accusing someone of secretly being a Cabinet Minister is ad homiinem but you have to give me that, as far as responses go, it was definitely....
...
...
better than nothing.
Ward8
Active Member
I suppose if you view a park as nothing it would be hard to disagree with your point. The truth is, in a large city with limited green space, a park is a deeply important asset. In order to build a waterpark there they have to delete that asset. When that park is sitting next to the largest(?) parking lot in the city of Toronto - not a fundamentally important civic asset - you can see why people might prefer leaving the green space be. I guarantee there would be little to no resistance to this plan if the building site was located on one of the several hectares of blacktop, even with the presence of some of the other egregious aspects of this debacle.
Any proposals that fail to address the area from Exhibition station to Ontario Place holistically are likely to fail after the honeymoon phase.
picard102
Senior Member
I don't agree that the city has limited green space, Toronto has 28sq metres of parkland per person, which is higher than Vancouver, New York, and Chicago.
It has quite a bit, especially near here, where it wraps around Humber Bay for quite a distance.
rbt
Senior Member
Indeed. There are parts of the city which do have limited park land, but not within 1km (~quick walking distance) of this specific location.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
If the internet claim is proven to be true here, there maybe some argument to be made. However, if the position is taken there is no such thing as having too much parks then the argument of "we have enough" goes *poof!*...
...I am inclined to believe it's the latter as oppose to the former.
...I am inclined to believe it's the latter as oppose to the former.
rbt
Senior Member
There's definitely a thing as too much park; or where the cost of maintaining the park space is higher than the value it provides to the users. Everyone in Toronto wants more parks but very few lobby to increase the Park/Forest funding and maintenance suffers. IMO, quality matters and many existing park spaces suffer for maintenance: more parks in Toronto for the last 20 years has meant less maintenance across all parks.
The value provided to users is highly location dependant: if it wasn't location dependant everyone in downtown Toronto would just go to Downsview for their daily dog walk; or, for hyperbole, Algonquin Park which is 10x the size of Toronto with roughly 1/2 an acre of park space per Toronto resident.
I don't have a way to rank any given park and it's usefulness, but I'd bet $10 Million upgrading Coronation Park would go further to making local residents happy than $10M at Ontario Place. Coronation Park, aside from the bike path to travel through it, is very low use.
Last edited:
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
I said "parks", not "park"...
...outside of that Freudian slip, if one values green space over the costs of maintaining it...then yes, there is no such thing as "too much" here. As the public doesn't really look at parks as a bean counting thing.
But we're getting off topic here...as this is about this park space, where there is plenty of surface parking space to deal with the issues brought up. Unless, folks here believe in there is no such thing as too much parking space, then I don't know what to say about that. /sigh
...outside of that Freudian slip, if one values green space over the costs of maintaining it...then yes, there is no such thing as "too much" here. As the public doesn't really look at parks as a bean counting thing.
But we're getting off topic here...as this is about this park space, where there is plenty of surface parking space to deal with the issues brought up. Unless, folks here believe in there is no such thing as too much parking space, then I don't know what to say about that. /sigh
Ward8
Active Member
It's definitely limited in that it's pretty hard to make more of it. There is a finite amount. That's the core of my point. Why bulldoze a mature park when there is a massive expanse of blacktop that sits empty for most of the year directly abutting said park? Like i said, there are lots of reasons one could dislike this project, but the absurdity of the location is the primary factor that has galvanized such broad public animosity.
Lots of things should be built South of the Gardiner between Strachan and Dunn. There is room for thousands of residents, ample retail, exhibition facilities, and plenty of attractions (including a waterpark.) It has to be dealt with in a way that knits these lands back into the fabric of the city. A series of isolated, auto dependant enclaves, like this and hotel X and other proposed projects are not a recipe for long term success. New buildings should enhance the existing features like OP, help solve the problems of the site, like Lake Shore blvd, and ultimately form the basis of a community. There is no good reason to throw out the baby with the bathwater at Ontario Place.