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

[UtakataNoAnnex]

...I'll also like to say I know when somethings a bad deal when the apologetics of it is flowing thick as a Rudy Giuliani press conference. So I'll just shut up now, and hope I won't be watching a 99 year horror show that spirals out of control.

In the meantime, I can least take some solace that my personal good memories of the place will never become corrupted.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

No one is saying they would. Nor should it. PERIOD.

If you lease an apartment, a car or anything else there are stipulations about the condition in which it's returned. Usually, you're not allowed to knock out walls, add a spoiler to the car or, you know, anything else that will significantly change the appearance or function.
You make it sound like they're just borrowing the site so it's no big deal but given the nature of his particular lease, if you're going to argue there is significance ot the government not-selling the land, it's pretty weak.

Feel free to stop replying anytime.

Almost there, thanks.

A theme park that doesn't generate money is what got us here. So yes, being able to turn a profit to keep the doors open is a positive.

It wasn't really a theme park; which, quite arguably, was a large part of the problem. It kind of half-heartedly tried to be one but it wasn't really any one thing. You know what else it wasn't...?

Good is subjective. A water park replacing a water park is a net neutral imo.

That's right! It also wasn't a water park! Yes, it had a small one, it's true but then it also wasn't a food court (though it had eateries) and it also wasn't a science museum (though it had a Nintendo pod and a 'future pod' thing for a while) or an amusement park (though it had one flume ride and some bumper boats).

Sure. Draw up the paperwork.

My attorney will be in touch. Contact info below if you don't hear by the end of the week.

 

[picard102]

Almost there, thanks.

Bye.

 

[JohnnyRaylander]

That Ontario place was owned by the province doesn't mean it was publicly accessible in any materially different way than Therme will be.

Not all public land is always publicly accessible, correct. You're missing some of the obvious objections to transferring prime public land.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Not all public land is always publicly accessible, correct. You're missing some of the obvious objections to transferring prime public land.

Nonsense!. CFB Trenton and Parliament Hill are public land and we can all go to either whenever we want.
If Justin Trudeau wants to let Madame Tussaud open a wax museum at the gates and start charging admission at either location, both will be still basically be publicly accesssible the same way they are now, materially speaking.

"Public" and "accessible" mean, you know, whatever.

 

[generalcanada]

...I'll also like to say I know when somethings a bad deal when the apologetics of it is flowing thick as a Rudy Giuliani press conference. So I'll just shut up now, and hope I won't be watching a 99 year horror show that spirals out of control.

In the meantime, I can least take some solace that my personal good memories of the place will never become corrupted.

Im also going to take a backseat to this roller coaster ride.
We will see in 2028 when its open if people want it

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Im also going to take a backseat to this roller coaster ride.
We will see in 2028 when its open if people want it

Fair enough!

 

[picard102]

Not all public land is always publicly accessible, correct. You're missing some of the obvious objections to transferring prime public land.

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]

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.

 

[Natika33]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

More ad hominems. Really reaching now.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

More ad hominems. Really reaching now.

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]

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.

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]

The truth is, in a large city with limited green space, a park is a deeply important asset.

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.