That is not from a different angle, the design changed, completely, this is a resubmission, which we discussed extensively in thread.
You missed my point, The facility from the angle facing northeast over the water is by no means a "sealed box without windows" which is what Alex says it is. Even the older version was the complete opposite of that
You just said he agreed w/the authors, now you concede he did not. Do you see the problem?
No you still missed my point again, I never said he specifically writes that he agrees, just that he did
Lets try again then with more clarity.
The original author said this:
>e. According to a study of
26 American downtowns that I mentioned earlier, such visitors account for approximately
two thirds—(61.7 percent) of downtown activity (see Figure 3), significantly more than
residents, who account for about 10 percent of activity (11.2 percent), and office workers,
who account for a little over a quarter of activity (27.1 percent).30 The cities that have
recovered the most, the study concludes, are those that had “the highest share of daily
visitors downtown in 2019.”
Alex said this about tourists noting that tourist traps are good for the city. This IMO is agreeing with the authors? Do you disagree?
A spectacular art gallery is an object of civic pride, a draw for international tourists, and a type of place that brings in people on foot and sends them out into the street looking for cocktails and tapas, ready to tell their friends at home about the glories of the city. Toronto politicians don’t understand such places, even though Ontario Place was one of them – in 1971.
Except that it does mean something, that OP is not sitting empty with zero or near-zero use.
I have no difficulty with any argument that the status quo needs work. I just don't think Therme is the right work.
But while one can argue for whatever form of change one wishes, one cannot argue that Ontario Place is abandoned/empty, it is not.
It is neglected, and portions of the site have restricted access, something imposed by this government.
There is 1 major difference though, "Ontario Place" can and should be defined as 2 different things.
1. the old waterpark, theme park, children's village, and log flume ride together being "Ontario Place"
2. Both islands together and everything in it.
Personally, if someone says "Ontario Place" I don't immediately think of Budweiser stage, My mind goes right to the log flume ride. That to me is "Ontario Place"
The log flume ride has been argued before, but I still maintain that by definition it is abandoned.
Which by my definition I can argue that "Ontario Place is abandoned."
Ontario Place as a theme park was closed not by this government but by the previous liberals who also would have preferred to redevelop the site to a private party.
also, we have talked before about different possible uses here before. But at this point barring a complete Suprise 180 It's just not going to happen with this government.
www.theglobeandmail.com
