Toronto Ontario Place | ?m | ?s | Infrastructure ON

DavidCapizzano said:
The one they did in downtown Guelph looks alright - still not very desirable here though


View attachment 583637

View attachment 583638
Click to expand...

If one must go above grade with parking (debatable), that is a good effort, let's be honest, it's better than a lot of the podiums we see here at UT, and definitely gives off the early 20thC industrial vibe.

The corner bit in 'modern' grey panels really detracts from the overall aesthetic. I assume they wanted it to look like old school metal sheathing but boy is that a miss.

Would have been good to see some at-grade retail there too.

****

While that scale isn't bad, again, for such a thing...........it's certainly large enough to block Lake views from much of Exhibition Place if built in similar proportion. The kicker here, the Guelph garage is 'only' 496 spaces......so the garage at the EX/OP would be more than 5x the size!
 
Northern Light said:
The corner bit in 'modern' grey panels really detracts from the overall aesthetic. I assume they wanted it to look like old school metal sheathing but boy is that a miss.
Click to expand...
Looks better on the south side.
IMG_1829.png


I think an above ground parking structure of 5x that size is unacceptable anywhere downtown.

I also don’t follow why the province would foot the whole bill for this, no contribution from Therme?
 
reinventingthewheel said:
I think an above ground parking structure of 5x that size is unacceptable anywhere downtown.

I also don’t follow why the province would foot the whole bill for this, no contribution from Therme?
Click to expand...
I don't think it's a fatal error to do an above grade garage, certainly worse than a below-grade structure too though. The area isn't exactly a pinnacle of urbanism and these large exhibition / events grounds are pretty typical to have very large development scales, including large structure parking garages, globally. We aren't dropping a 2,700 space garage in the middle of Kensington Market here. A siting north of Lake Shore on the existing exhibition ground is a massive surface lot which is usually used as surface parking for guests even when the Ex is underway.

The Exhibition surface lot on the north side of Lake Shore does sit on a berm which appears to be about 5 metres tall. Perhaps they could do two levels underground there without the expensive waterproofing to mitigate the size of it, with a smaller above-grade component.

As to why the Province signed on to the garage - Likely because it will act as a shared facility for all leasees on Ontario Place. It only makes sense for the landlord to provide it as a part of the lease.

We don't know the lease terms the province has made with Therme, Live Nation, etc. - but I assume there is some level of elevated rent payment because the province is providing the parking facility.
 
The latest challenge to the province's Ontario Place legislation (not the development scheme itself, but the move to exempt the site from virtually all forms of review or challenge) has been dismissed.

www.thestar.com

Court dismisses challenge to Ford government’s Ontario Place revamp

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed a legal challenge by Ontario Place Protectors over the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

From the above:

1722031690003.png


Irrespective of one's take on the details of the OP plans.......I think their lawyer does proffer a useful point:

1722031907269.png


Removing any of the sensationalist type stuff.......the fair question is how far should the government be allowed to go in exempting itself from scrutiny or penalty when there is no emergent reason for same (say a pandemic)?

*****

I note w/some bemusement..........unless there's a very interesting coincidence afoot, the lawyer for Ontario Place Protectors seems to be the same fellow who represented the Bayview residents group fighting against the transitional housing
at Willowdale/Cummer.
 
Northern Light said:
The latest challenge to the province's Ontario Place legislation (not the development scheme itself, but the move to exempt the site from virtually all forms of review or challenge) has been dismissed.

www.thestar.com

Court dismisses challenge to Ford government’s Ontario Place revamp

The Ontario Superior Court dismissed a legal challenge by Ontario Place Protectors over the Rebuilding Ontario Place Act.
www.thestar.com www.thestar.com

From the above:

View attachment 583698

Irrespective of one's take on the details of the OP plans.......I think their lawyer does proffer a useful point:

View attachment 583703

Removing any of the sensationalist type stuff.......the fair question is how far should the government be allowed to go in exempting itself from scrutiny or penalty when there is no emergent reason for same (say a pandemic)?

*****

I note w/some bemusement..........unless there's a very interesting coincidence afoot, the lawyer for Ontario Place Protectors seems to be the same fellow who represented the Bayview residents group fighting against the transitional housing
at Willowdale/Cummer.
Click to expand...
Decision here: https://ontarioplaceprotectors.com/...ontario_place_protectors_v._hmk_judgment_.pdf

read through it, It's not the clearest of wins for the government.

the very least is that apperently that the applicant lacks standing.
Public trust argument is not a thing apperrently

While the judge said the entire act doesnt go against the constitution, she doesnt rule out that any action prohibited by the act couldnt actually be raised

Theoretically saying that someone could resubmit asking for remedies against the environmental act or heritage act
 
Last edited:
The government did their homework in gaming the system. It doesn't mean what they are doing isn't wrong, but they have least covered their arses in the legal sense here..

...there is also the fact they don't really care if they're wrong in any other sense. Rather, the they can do it and with impunity currently. /bleh
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
The government did their homework in gaming the system. It doesn't mean what they are doing isn't wrong, but they have least covered their arses in the legal sense here..

...there is also the fact they don't really care if they're wrong in any other sense. Rather, the they can do it and with impunity currently. /bleh
Click to expand...
You call it gaming the system I call it bad lawyering. Find anyone who is directly impacted by the loss of the tress. someone who testifies that they would be directly harmed by the removal of the trees. It's really not that hard thousands would put their hand up. Im serious, I would LOL
File a lawsuit on behalf of them. you might actually win

However, those affidavits contain no information about who the applicant is, whether it is a legal entity, what its purposes are, or why it is in a position to launch this application. The applicant was identified as a legal entity for the first time in an affidavit in support of the applicant’s costs submissions, rather than on the merits, sworn the day before the hearing


[19] There is insufficient evidence in the record about the applicant to determine whether it has a genuine interest in the matter. The applicant asks the court to presume that it does, given the support it was able to garner in its affidavit materials. This is insufficient to meet the first branch of the test. However, even if I presume that this branch of the test is met, and further find that the matter before the court is justiciable, the applicant falters on the third branch of the test. This challenge would better be brought to court by a party that wishes to assert a cause of action that is extinguished by s. 17(2). This would enable the court to analyse the provision’s impact within a proper factual matrix. It would provide the court with contending points of view of those most directly affected. The paucity of facts adversely affects the level of analysis the court is able to undertake, as I explain more fully below
Click to expand...

Like c'mon Standing is the 1st term you learn in law school. what's funnier is that I'm not a lawyer, even I read this in a "how are you this bad" LOL

note that 17.2 being the "were immune" clause


Actually I dont think they can "cover their ass" He makes it clear that they litterally could refile under one of those clauses covered and more importantly can find remedies

[42] Such provisions do not per se improperly violate s. 96. Perhaps there are circumstances in which such a provision goes too far. However, no such circumstance is apparent in this application. At this stage, the applicant, who seeks to bring no action that is prohibited by s. 17(2), asks the court to declare theoretically in a vacuum that s. 17(2) goes too far. I find no basis for doing so on the record before me.
Click to expand...

Again, cmon bad lawyering. Now to be fair, because of court costs, the only way to challenge this law is to pool money together which makes it harder to say "im affected" but still. Hes litterally painting a target and saying do this you idiots!
 
in other news, because of the delay of the MGT trail construction apperently a deal was reached to double the detour width to 3m.

Ill check it out tomorrow, but this sounds much better than what was set for almost 7 months now

1722056885398.png
 
Er...it's good lawyering. The government got what they wanted for the most part.
 
generalcanada said:
in other news, because of the delay of the MGT trail construction apperently a deal was reached to double the detour width to 3m.

Ill check it out tomorrow, but this sounds much better than what was set for almost 7 months now

View attachment 583790
Click to expand...
great news. thanks for sharing. it's been crap squeezing through that tiny trail.
 
Wasn't the Ex looking into adding more restaurants, cafes & retail into their grounds anyway to encourage more walkability & all-season (not just CNE) use? What if we combine some of the ideas presented here and push for retail & restaurants at ground level & rooftop (with parking in between). Since so much parking is needed, maybe the parking could be broken up across more than one building too so one could be built partly into the hill, another be like the Guelph one, and they could either be arranged in blocks to make a new district, or they could be scattered throughout the Ex grounds so no one area feels too heavy. I am sure some of our talented designers & architects could come up with something amazing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top