Toronto Ripley's Aquarium of Canada | 13.11m | 2s | Ripley Entertainment | B+H

[Register123]

You haven't been to Chicago have you? Otherwise you'd know that Millennium Park, Grant Park, Navy Pier, Soldiers Field, Buckingham fountain are all considered waterfront amenities. If you don't think this grouping of absolutely amazing parks (almost unrivaled in the world) is better than what Toronto has or even has planned - you are deluded, sorry.

 

[Tewder]

Are you kidding ?

What's so nice about that picture ... okay, it's an aquarium on the water, granted, it seems many of you folks fascinate about that (which I understand to a certain degree). But nothing else in that picture strikes me a great waterfront ... nothing even close.

Really? I just don't even know how to reply.

Sure I'll agree that they clearly will (and do) have a better aquarium and it happens to be on the water.

Millennium park is great yes. Very few cities have anything approaching that quality. But that's beside the point as were talking about the waterfront here.

I do agree it would be nice for Toronto to have some sort of epic park along those lines but it won't likely happen.

... and yet, you're sort of just proving all my points!

Look, I would never say that Chicago is a better city than Toronto. They are different. I will say that Chicago has better public spaces/parks/waterfront and by almost any measure or standard... and this isn't about the South Side or if their suburbs are worse than ours or whatever. It is simply that Toronto is a broken mess where these things are concerned and we need to recognize it and change it, rather than be defensive about it. We're not fooling anybody but ourselves.

... but if you think i'm being hard-headed about this name me just one public space in the heart of Toronto that even approaches the level of quality we see in Chicago. Just for the sake of a dialogue.

 

[Register123]

I would love to know one too, because I would visit it often. And my statements comparing Toronto's waterfront to Calgary's are sincere and I can tell you, anyone on this forum who hasn't been to Calgary to see what they have done should not speak to it, because you sound foolish. Don't hate Calgary because they are doing an amazing job with there public spaces. Wish I knew how to attach images here, have to learn some day. Google images of Calgary's Central Park , another beautiful and well planned park, the likes that Toronto doesn't have currently.

 

[taal]

I think I needed to be a little more clear.

I will without a doubt admit Chicago has better public spaces ... and not just one or two, quite a few of them (that are arguably higher quality / more interesting / in really just about every aspect). I wasn't arguing Toronto has anything on Chicago in terms of that. In all honesty I think for it's size one can argue Toronto has very little.

What I was arguing, and I've been there 4+ times now. Is these parks can really be anywhere, I see no connection between the majority of them and their waterfront (even if they happen to be on it). I would love to have any single one of them in Toronto, and heck we have such a large waterfront they can go there as well. But what Toronto has done right (and unfortunately it's such a small accomplishment) is the Queens Quay terminal building / Harbourfront center and it's connection with the waterfront. Honestly I'd take this over what Chicago has (on the water), I'm not even aruging it's better quality, but just it's a perfect fit for the waterfront.

 

[taal]

Really? I just don't even know how to reply.
It is simply that Toronto is a broken mess where these things are concerned and we need to recognize it and change it, rather than be defensive about it. We're not fooling anybody but ourselves.

I wholeheartedly and completely agree with you on this !

But I think if your hoping for change it just won't happen, not on a large scale and not in our lifetimes. It's sad but the truth. Having said that on the small scale, Sherobone park, if you've visited it really turning out to be quite amazing - once the area around it get's built up. Honestly that's our small version of Millennium park right there. I'm being quite serious here as well, the quality of finishes that we've seen on the waterfront so far (Sugar beech and the like) are unparalleled anywhere in Toronto ... I'm not sure how we got so lucky with this and it'll be sad if this is all we get due to cuts or what not.

What's also unfortunate is this isn't the core of the city - I don't think there's much hope for the core. Ideally NPS would be turned into a Millennium park (I don't mean this literally but you understand my point) ... but it won't happen.

 

[taal]

Look, I would never say that Chicago is a better city than Toronto.

I actually have quite a few opinions regarding this . I'd be interesting to see how they contract with yours, I'm assuming you've been there.

To put it shortly ... Chicago is a much grander city in every respect (I guess less the CN tower ... , it feels like a huge city in its core and the attention to detail throughout is nice (I won't say amazing because it's not, there are cities that do a better job elsewhere). The architecture is clearly unparalleled. You really get a feeling that your in an important / special place. You can get that in Toronto to a lesser degree but there are always flaws.

If I had to pick one city to visit Chicago would win by such a landslide ... honestly, I'm not even sure why anyone visits Toronto .

So this is all pretty negative but I guess the key question is would I move there ? (maybe ...) but from what I can see (from a couple long visits) I still prefer Toronto to 'live' in ... there are many aspects to this, and btw none of it has to due with crime (I hate that argument). I find Toronto has more character, more interesting neighborhoods, and in all honestly, more livable neighborhoods. Don't get me wrong so does Chicago, but to me Toronto is just more interesting. I really did make my way through most of Chicago (as I know people who live there, it wasn't the touristy trip).

But maybe that's just all me.

Part of this requires accepting the fact Toronto won't be like Chicago in the first aspects I mentioned - yes I want it to change but if you live your life with that attitude Toronto will look like and feel like a very negative place to you.

 

[Register123]

Queen's Quay is ok, but can't compare to Chicago's Navy Pier which is right on the waterfront since you seem to think none of these other parks are waterfront (which they are). I am comparing scale of development, quality, and diversity of attraction. It has it all, museums, children's science center, theatre, classic amusement park rides, pools. You really have to see more of it if you prefer Queens Quay it's just no comparison.

 

[jn_12]

Saying "why can't our waterfront be more like Chicago's?" is like saying "why can't the AGO and ROM be more like the Louvre and the British Museum?" You're comparing Toronto to quite literally the best in the world at that one thing. No one has a waterfront like Chicago's except for Chicago, and the only reason it's like that is because of the culmination of 200 years worth of planning and circumstance: Plans for the city 200 years ago called for Grant Park. Throw in the fact that the Adler Planetarium and the Shedd Aquarium were only built because two wealthy men donated a lot of money to have them built and the Field Museum and Art Institute only exist because they held the 1893 World's Columbian Expo. Finally, and perhaps unparalleled anywhere, the private sector paid for half of the nearly $500million cost to build Millennium Park. Also keep in mind, we're talking about a period (city beautiful movement) when grandiose and ambitious structures and plans were the norm around the world. Toronto has a few remnants of this era, but we're talking about comparing us to a city that was one of the wealthiest in the world during that specific period and perhaps at the forefront of the entire movement.

However, the other thing is, Chicago's waterfront isn't a welcoming place for locals. It's primarily a tourist destination. Toronto's waterfront is filling up with condos (for better or for worse) and it means that the area is far friendlier to locals. It's another neighbourhood, not an attraction. Essentially, if something like Chicago's waterfront is what we want (for some reason), then we should start looking at the Exhibition grounds as our own Museum campus/designer park. We already have the buildings and the Princes' Gate. You just need to tear up the parking lots, replace it with parks and fountains, kick the CNE out, find uses for each building and you're good to go. But there's no point wishing we had a Chicago waterfront between Spadina and Parliament. That ball had to start rolling before any of our grandparents were born.

 

[Register123]

I think that idea for the CNE grounds should be seriously looked at, all the great old architecture with ample room for greenspace and fountains. It could by all means be top notch. The CNE could be moved to Downsview, I think it would be a very suitable location.

 

[Lansdown]

Saying "why can't our waterfront be more like Chicago's?" is like saying "why can't the AGO and ROM be more like the Louvre and the British Museum?" You're comparing Toronto to quite literally the best in the world at that one thing. No one has a waterfront like Chicago's except for Chicago, and the only reason it's like that is because of the culmination of 200 years worth of planning and circumstance: Plans for the city 200 years ago called for Grant Park. Throw in the fact that the Adler Planetarium and the Shedd Aquarium were only built because two wealthy men donated a lot of money to have them built and the Field Museum and Art Institute only exist because they held the 1893 World's Columbian Expo. Finally, and perhaps unparalleled anywhere, the private sector paid for half of the nearly $500million cost to build Millennium Park. Also keep in mind, we're talking about a period (city beautiful movement) when grandiose and ambitious structures and plans were the norm around the world. Toronto has a few remnants of this era, but we're talking about comparing us to a city that was one of the wealthiest in the world during that specific period and perhaps at the forefront of the entire movement.

However, the other thing is, Chicago's waterfront isn't a welcoming place for locals. It's primarily a tourist destination. Toronto's waterfront is filling up with condos (for better or for worse) and it means that the area is far friendlier to locals. It's another neighbourhood, not an attraction. Essentially, if something like Chicago's waterfront is what we want (for some reason), then we should start looking at the Exhibition grounds as our own Museum campus/designer park. We already have the buildings and the Princes' Gate. You just need to tear up the parking lots, replace it with parks and fountains, kick the CNE out, find uses for each building and you're good to go. But there's no point wishing we had a Chicago waterfront between Spadina and Parliament. That ball had to start rolling before any of our grandparents were born.

Q.E.D. This is an excellent response, that's why I come here.

 

[Tewder]

Saying "why can't our waterfront be more like Chicago's?" is like saying "why can't the AGO and ROM be more like the Louvre and the British Museum?".

I don't think we want Toronto's waterfront to be exactly like Chicago's, literally speaking. This is more about a comparable degree of quality and scale, whether talking about Millennium Park vs City Place or the Shed vs the proposed Ripley's aquarium, or waterfront development overall.

You're comparing Toronto to quite literally the best in the world at that one thing. No one has a waterfront like Chicago's except for Chicago, and the only reason it's like that is because of the culmination of 200 years worth of planning and circumstance: Plans for the city 200 years ago called for Grant Park. Throw in the fact that the Adler Planetarium and the Shedd Aquarium were only built because two wealthy men donated a lot of money to have them built and the Field Museum and Art Institute only exist because they held the 1893 World's Columbian Expo. Finally, and perhaps unparalleled anywhere, the private sector paid for half of the nearly $500million cost to build Millennium Park. Also keep in mind, we're talking about a period (city beautiful movement) when grandiose and ambitious structures and plans were the norm around the world. Toronto has a few remnants of this era, but we're talking about comparing us to a city that was one of the wealthiest in the world during that specific period and perhaps at the forefront of the entire movement.

Again, nobody here is talking 'literally'... and I can't help but feel you are simply apologizing for the inferiority of Toronto over Chicago on these things. As many things as Chicago has or has had going for it so has Toronto. We have experienced enormous prosperity in this city over the last 50 or 60 years, and the early post-war generations of Toronto did build big, did build with quality and did not have excuses about why they couldn't build subways or gorgeous new modernist buildings or the world's tallest tower and so on. We've also had our share of private investment and philanthropy, including the recently completed museums in Toronto that you cite... and as far as the AGO goes I wouldn't consider it second to anything in terms of quality and integrity, though the Dundas Street/Grange Park surroundings are another matter altogether!

However, the other thing is, Chicago's waterfront isn't a welcoming place for locals. It's primarily a tourist destination. Toronto's waterfront is filling up with condos (for better or for worse) and it means that the area is far friendlier to locals. It's another neighbourhood, not an attraction.

... but the watefront should be an asset for all to enjoy, locals and visitors alike. It isn't just the backdrop of a neighbourhood, it is the front face of the city. In Toronto we are leaving very little parkland or open public space on the water, choosing to go for development instead. Pretty boardwalks and lamps? Yes, but not the kind of vision for the Waterfront that we hoped would correct the mistakes already made.

Essentially, if something like Chicago's waterfront is what we want (for some reason), then we should start looking at the Exhibition grounds as our own Museum campus/designer park. We already have the buildings and the Princes' Gate. You just need to tear up the parking lots, replace it with parks and fountains, kick the CNE out, find uses for each building and you're good to go. But there's no point wishing we had a Chicago waterfront between Spadina and Parliament. That ball had to start rolling before any of our grandparents were born.

I think you're missing the point. This is not a discussion of the waterfront per se, it is about the city's failure to provide for and maintain quality public spaces. We could just as easily be discussing Queen's Park or the fountains on University Avenue or hydro poles or any number of other issues. They are all part of the same problem. Why should we expect the waterfront to be any better, or any other space for that matter, if we do not address this problem and improve?

... and not to be a complete downer on Toronto either because there are some bright spots and there are some things we are doing well. Bloor Street is finally emerging as something worthy enough to be considered a high-end retail area. NPS is being restored to some of its former glory. Fort York may finally get a little of the attention it deserves... but these things are signposts that point to the direction we should be taking in Toronto. These things should be setting a standard, and hopefully they will!

 

[Landscape design ftw]

Your smartphone removes about 50 IQ points somehow, maybe you should have it repaired.

Are you in any manner reading this forum because you care about what this development means for the city? Or is this just where you came to cry and practice your trolling cause you can't hack it on the big boy forums? yeah thx GG.

 

[Landscape design ftw]

I take it you don't know this book.

What book are you talking about? If your talking about Neuromancer then yes, yes I have. nearly a decade ago.

 

[taal]

Queen's Quay is ok, but can't compare to Chicago's Navy Pier which is right on the waterfront since you seem to think none of these other parks are waterfront (which they are). I am comparing scale of development, quality, and diversity of attraction. It has it all, museums, children's science center, theatre, classic amusement park rides, pools. You really have to see more of it if you prefer Queens Quay it's just no comparison.

I still disagree - and I've seen all of it - multiple times ... isn't that where all tourist go ! (it's a requirement).

Again, there's no real connection with the water - all of that could be built else where and it would have been just as grand.

You're missing my point - I keep stating I wish Toronto had something like that; But it doesn't need to be on the water, it could be anywhere literary. When referring to the water, I like the approach we took, in regards to the Harbourfont Center better.

 

[Landscape design ftw]

Saying "why can't our waterfront be more like Chicago's?" is like saying "why can't the AGO and ROM be more like the Louvre and the British Museum?" You're comparing Toronto to quite literally the best in the world at that one thing. No one has a waterfront like Chicago's except for Chicago, and the only reason it's like that is because of the culmination of 200 years worth of planning and circumstance: Plans for the city 200 years ago called for Grant Park. Throw in the fact that the Adler Planetarium and the Shedd Aquarium were only built because two wealthy men donated a lot of money to have them built and the Field Museum and Art Institute only exist because they held the 1893 World's Columbian Expo. Finally, and perhaps unparalleled anywhere, the private sector paid for half of the nearly $500million cost to build Millennium Park. Also keep in mind, we're talking about a period (city beautiful movement) when grandiose and ambitious structures and plans were the norm around the world. Toronto has a few remnants of this era, but we're talking about comparing us to a city that was one of the wealthiest in the world during that specific period and perhaps at the forefront of the entire movement.

However, the other thing is, Chicago's waterfront isn't a welcoming place for locals. It's primarily a tourist destination. Toronto's waterfront is filling up with condos (for better or for worse) and it means that the area is far friendlier to locals. It's another neighbourhood, not an attraction. Essentially, if something like Chicago's waterfront is what we want (for some reason), then we should start looking at the Exhibition grounds as our own Museum campus/designer park. We already have the buildings and the Princes' Gate. You just need to tear up the parking lots, replace it with parks and fountains, kick the CNE out, find uses for each building and you're good to go. But there's no point wishing we had a Chicago waterfront between Spadina and Parliament. That ball had to start rolling before any of our grandparents were born.

Wonderful to know other people have a such an interest in the history of such public developments but Grant park didnt start getting planned 200 years ago Central park wasn't planned till 1857 and wasnt really finished til nearly 1890 in its entirety, and that is hailed as the start of northa american landscape design, under the guidance and design of Frederick Law Olmsted.

Very gppd points have been made that Chicago has a million one historical advantages over Toronto is its development, and the fire of 1915 that wiped out more then 70% of Torontos old historic district didn't help. We dont need Toronto to have chicagos waterfront, and I agree those waterfrotns are better for tourists then they are for their inhabitants. With the current plans we have Toronto can be a world first for a combination of waterfront city core park, neighbourhood, shopping center and future historic site. To compare toronto to all these other world class city's is unfair because we were never even an important city until after the war of 1812, Our development didnt even take off til around WW2 when we became an important military base for the second time. That was mostly due impart to the fact that we had so conveniently destroyed the great lakes largest wetland of a 1000 acres which are now the toronto docks. it really wasnt till about 70 years ago anyone looked at us as more then a bigger smellier version of Hamilton and we started to come into the future.

But now that Toronto is definitively the largest city in Canada, in terms of business population. You might think the people supposedly representing us and claiming to to do whats best for our futures would have more of a vested interest or even give half a shite, about the city's future and international appeal, as it in the end reflects on the rest of the country to a substantial ammount of tourists and soon on a truly international stage with the pan am games comming.