I guess the Gee article is a reminder there are other opinions out there and it's not so much a question of right or wrong... but also some people are drinking the Kool Aid the government is selling. Here's another quote from the article:
Though the critics may turn up their noses, ordinary people flock to such attractions, whether it is Great Wolf Lodge in Niagara Falls or the Biodôme in Montreal. The Ontario Place project is just an updated version of this fun-for-the-whole-family approach, with wellness and water as its focus.
I think there's a lot to take issue with here. Firstly, no one objects to the existence or popularity of Great Wolf Lodge or the Biodome, which are two very different attractions but OK.
But last I checked, Great Wolf Lodge is located on private land a couple of miles north of Niagara Falls. If it were located on NPC land, next door to Table Rock, I'd suggest it would be a very different matter. As it stands, the more tawdry attractions at Niagara Falls are on Clifton Hill and the Parks Commission keeps waterslides and wax museums off its own lands. There's also that (again, far as I know) Great Wolf Lodge does not claim to be a "wellness centre" serving a public good, through its waterslides. It's just a waterpark and hotel.
Now, some people are very dogmatic about Ontario Place and I agree with Gee that there is value in having a real, active attraction there (and frankly, I could even see a ferris wheel working here). But you can't look at these issues in isolation. What kind of attraction it is is one issue. How it was tendered is another, particularly as it realtes to the public investment in stuff like parking. How the architecture relates to what's already there is another. And how this all ties into the Science Centre land grab is a whole other thing.
EDIT: Just to add, this is also dumb:
It is not at all unusual to put such an attraction on a prime waterfront site. London has a giant Ferris wheel, called London Eye, on the bank of the Thames, opposite Big Ben and the Houses of Parliament. Chicago has Navy Pier.
Most people are not objecting to the well-understood concept of tourist attractions near water. We already have Harbourfront and the islands (and Ontario Place!) and many other things and we are aware there are thousands of other such things around the wolrld. That said, I would at least agree that if something akin to Navy Pier was proposed, some people would likely be objecting to that as well - I mean, we don't need a Bubba Gump Shrimp Company but, hey, we already have the IMAX theatre.
But for most of us, I think the concerns are both broader and deeper, starting with what Ontario Place has been and not just considering what its future should be and how that decision was made and what the implications of it really are.
So to assert that critics are "wrong" because there's a Ferris Wheel at Navy Pier and people like checking out the rain forest at the Biodome is not, in my opinion, an entirely coherent argument. I won't make blanket accusation (like he does) that he is "wrong," but he is missing some things people are concerned about.
