News   May 23, 2024
Siamak Hariri on Giving Form to Aspiration at the ROM
 471     0 
News   May 23, 2024
Architectural Plans Reveal the Details of the OpenROM Renovation
 988     7 
News   May 23, 2024
Quayside Resubmission Increases Heights of Western Curve and Overstory Towers
 1.2K     0 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

Toronto had the opportunity to get the province to pay - but voted against it. Once by the electorate, once by the Councillors.
So suck it up, Toronto wanted to spend this Billion. (Actually, I think the number was closer to $500M in construction costs).
 
Some of Toronto wanted it, not all of Toronto. This thread alone should make that fact obvious. This has been a heavily politicized boondoggle from day 1.

But yes, it's too late. Council committed us to some form of hybrid. Going to have to look more closely at the three options, but at first glance the most attractive of the three looks to be the third one.
 
I don't think trenching it would be at all a problem.

They have the bridge over the Don and then a mild 3 meter trench with buildings on top so the highway is completely hidden. It can gradually descend under Cherry and under Parliament and then rise up to meet with the current elevated structure.

The developers would pay the portion of the highway under their buildings and Toronto the new Don bridge and sections under Cherry & Parliament and the rest of the elevated route to roughly Jervis. I bet developers would jump at the chance and instead of a tax-free zone, the city would actually make money ongoing thru the property taxes and upkeep would be MUCH less due to no weather effects on the highway.

I don't think a "boulevard" would really fit too well. I like the idea of getting rid of the highway all together but the problem with blvds is that they can be surprisingly pedestrian unfriendly. They are simply too wide to create a urban environment.
They can be beautiful no doubt and there is certainly a time and place for them but it Toronto wants to reconnect to it's Waterfront, a wide Blvd is not the best option.

If they tear down the Gardiner I think a better option would be 2 one-way streets of say 3 or 4 lanes wide with mixed use one down the middle of two different flowing streets. With 4 lanes a urban community can flourish but crossing an 8 lane road with a wide median can be daunting and even alienating. Thinner roads create more intimacy than big wide ones.

I absolutely LOVE University Ave as it's a beautiful street but after work hours the entire stretch from Queen to Bloor is a dead zone. It's a lovely street to drive down or walk down but not one to meet friends or shop, dine, entertain, or simply while-away the hours people watching. Wide blvds aren't oriented that way.
 
ssiguy2 said:
I absolutely LOVE University Ave as it's a beautiful street but after work hours the entire stretch from Queen to Bloor is a dead zone. It's a lovely street to drive down or walk down but not one to meet friends or shop, dine, entertain, or simply while-away the hours people watching. Wide blvds aren't oriented that way.
Click to expand...
I don't think University Avenue being wide has anything to do with why it's dead outside of working hours. It's dead outside of working hours because of the type of buildings on that street (hospitals, government buildings, insurance companies, etc.)

Champs Elysees is much wider than University Avenue, and it's one of the most pedestrian friendly streets on the planet.
 
LNahid2000 said:
I don't think University Avenue being wide has anything to do with why it's dead outside of working hours. It's dead outside of working hours because of the type of buildings on that street (hospitals, government buildings, insurance companies, etc.)

Champs Elysees is much wider than University Avenue, and it's one of the most pedestrian friendly streets on the planet.
Click to expand...

Not to mention the city didn't do proper urban design and streetscaping on that avenue.

AoD
 
I think the idea to build a trench for the Gardiner and develop over top of it is brilliant. Hide the highway and generate tax revenue from development. It just takes planning to assemble the parcel of land for development. There haven't been enough creative approaches. Construction might cause major congestion for an extended period, however. My approach would be to move the Gardiner underground below Richmond and Adelaide and combine its construction with the construction of a DRL. This would have to be a toll highway to defray construction costs, though you get a subway as a byproduct and could leave the elevated Gardiner in place until construction is complete. With either plan, you open up land for development and beautification where an elevated highway exists today and separates the city from the lake. I really hope development unfolds in a big way over the train tracks as well. We need to lose these eyesores.
 
Last edited:
As for the position that we're stuck with a hybrid? Bullshit. Council could shut it down with an up/down vote.
 
So, not sure if this belongs in the fantasy map thread, but, whatever. What if the city decided it wanted to save $400 Million off $1 Billion while still reaping the benefits of unlocked land around Keating Channel?

E3sgsH4.png


What you're looking at is a compromise between this year's "Hybrid 3" option and last year's "Remove" options. Traffic flowing from the DVP the the Gardiner would ramp down to an 8 lane Lake Shore Boulevard past Cherry Street to Jarvis where it would then ramp back up to beet the Gardiner. The leftover money could then be used to extend the streetcar tracks down Broadview, Cherry, and Queens Quay to the Portlands or whatever other transit needs funding.
Also, because a grade-separated viaduct is maintained until past Cherry, there would be fewer impacts to overall travel speed, and less mingling with local traffic when compared with the full removal option.

Who knows, wait another couple years and something like this might end up back on the table.
 
Last edited:
dunkalunk said:
So, not sure if this belongs in the fantasy map thread, but, whatever. What if the city decided it wanted to save $400 Million off $1 Billion while still reaping the benefits of unlocked land around Keating Channel?

What you're looking at is a compromise between this year's "Hybrid 3" option and last year's "Remove" options. Traffic flowing from the DVP the the Gardiner would ramp down to an 8 lane Lake Shore Boulevard past Cherry Street to Jarvis where it would then ramp back up to beet the Gardiner. The leftover money could then be used to extend the streetcar tracks down Broadview, Cherry, and Queens Quay to the Portlands or whatever other transit needs funding.
Also, because a grade-separated viaduct is maintained until past Cherry, there would be fewer impacts to overall travel speed, and less mingling with local traffic when compared with the full removal option.

Who knows, wait another couple years and something like this might end up back on the table.
Click to expand...

Leave your suggestion here: http://fluidsurveys.com/s/GardinerE...il&utm_term=0_1d6eda22bb-9ab2a7bd5c-121632181
 
I would like to see it torn down but realistically I don't think it's an option.

The Gardiner is an important route but more importantly it's THRU route. If the DVP wasn't there then no problem with tearing it down but the reality is that it is there and they are connecting roads with heavy truck traffic.

I say instead of going underground or overground you instead go underneath..............an invisible Gardiner that actually makes the city money.

What I am proposing is just a glorified garage. Think of the big supermarkets, malls, or Walmarts that have huge underground parking..............unless you know the parking is there you could go by the building and never even know about the parking. I HATE Walmart but I had to go there recently and parked out front but when leaving the god-forsaken place I saw there was a MASSIVE underground parking lot I never even knew existed yet there it was under one of the largest Walmart's in Western Canada.

The only difference between that and what I am proposing is that one has parked cars and the other will have moving ones.
 
I like your cut and cover with development idea, a cheap alternative to tunneling a stand alone Gardiner that gives the same result: removal of elevated Gardiner. You should present it to Council. I'd say let's do that or combine tunneling for DRL with tunneling the Gardiner. The logical path is to connect it underground from the Richmond DVP ramp to a Front Street extension, which can merge with the Gardiner along the CNE. In either plan, the elevated Gardiner is removed.
 
Just put a building under the Gardiner (i.e. in Option 3). From street level, you would think the streets are simply lined with buildings. The Gardiner would just be above the roof level.

If somehow the anti-Gardiner people had their way, they would be pushing for a Lakeshore with buildings on either side. Same result, but keeps both camps happy.
 
Building underneath is already happening with the Loblaws development, but long swaths of the Gardiner are above Lakeshore Rd.
 
The LRT in Minneapolis actually goes thru the underground parking at the massive Mall of America.

As for me writing a letter I will leave that up to you guys............it's your city not mine {as much as I love it and miss it and wish it was} so it's your responsibility. Instead of talking the talk why don't you guys write City Hall and meet with your local councillor to propose the idea.

I don't think my letter and/or recommendations from BC would be given much weight.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top