animatronic
Senior Member
It's like watching a car crash in slow motion
|
|
|
Toronto Expo 2025
- Thread starter coolcanadian
- Start date
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Because Trudeau is encouraging Toronto 2025, expect the Conservatives and their supporters (AKA Toronto Sun) to be against Expo 2025. Don't have to supply reasons to be against it, just will be against it, because of Trudeau.
Euphoria
Active Member
The reason a global or national event is needed to justify this kind of expenditure on infrastructure is because you'll never get all three levels of government (plus international private sponsors) to fund a large scale project that is perceived to serve the interests of one particular community or area. Anyway, the facts on the ground are that governments aren't building places like Central Park anymore. Given the amount of groaning over projects like Boston's Big Dig, the public won't rally around a mass-scale project unless it has national and international appeal. The reason Expo 67 happened and is still celebrated today is because it was a watershed event in Canadian history, arguably the symbolic modernization of Quebec and Canada as a whole. It came about during the era of the TD Centre, the Quiet Revolution, the rise of Canada as a media centre, Centennial projects, the new Canadian flag, etc. Its construction coincided with and incorporated the construction of Montreal's subway system and the creation of the islands on which Expo stood. It allowed for the testing and creation of new transportation and housing concepts such as the monorail system and Safdie's Habitat. Canada found a new confidence and swagger that has had few iterations since (the 72 Soviet v. Canada hockey series, the back to back Jays World Series wins, the Olympic games in Montreal, Calgary, Vancouver, etc.). People can dump on these events for the expense, but really what do we look back on and celebrate in our shared history if not events like these? No doubt, some large scale projects, whether national or international in scope, are better executed and more worthwhile than others, which is why such undertakings are only worthwhile if the vision is right.
As for whether something on the scale of a Central Park is possible in this last blank slate on the waterfront, the Port Lands, I'd argue that we should shoot for something of that quality and approaching that scale, but distinctly Torontonian. A naturalized Don River should be its centerpiece. Corktown Common in the new Canary District is a good example of what's possible today for programming landscapes, except that it overlooks the train tracks. Imagine a much longer swath with more natural beauty. It will require a reimagining of places like the Leslie Street Spit and the Keating Chanel because the context will be very different from what it is today. I wonder if we could have a pedestrian bridge to Ward's Island? There are so many possibilities. The area is long enough to literally build a second downtown, the downtown we should've had if we committed to a more liveable civic vision early on and stuck to the plan. I agree that we've created barriers to the lake with the condos along Harbourfront, the elevated Gardiner Expressway, the above and at-grade train tracks, and Lakeshore Blvd. with its on/off ramps. Sugar beach is a better vision, but really the city needs a playground, and not just a big park that's an empty no-man's land with nothing around it. We have enough of those.
As for whether something on the scale of a Central Park is possible in this last blank slate on the waterfront, the Port Lands, I'd argue that we should shoot for something of that quality and approaching that scale, but distinctly Torontonian. A naturalized Don River should be its centerpiece. Corktown Common in the new Canary District is a good example of what's possible today for programming landscapes, except that it overlooks the train tracks. Imagine a much longer swath with more natural beauty. It will require a reimagining of places like the Leslie Street Spit and the Keating Chanel because the context will be very different from what it is today. I wonder if we could have a pedestrian bridge to Ward's Island? There are so many possibilities. The area is long enough to literally build a second downtown, the downtown we should've had if we committed to a more liveable civic vision early on and stuck to the plan. I agree that we've created barriers to the lake with the condos along Harbourfront, the elevated Gardiner Expressway, the above and at-grade train tracks, and Lakeshore Blvd. with its on/off ramps. Sugar beach is a better vision, but really the city needs a playground, and not just a big park that's an empty no-man's land with nothing around it. We have enough of those.
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Then get on with it, instead of pinning our hopes on global fairs and circuses.
That's why I wish Toronto had won every event it's bid on, so we'd be well and done with the pursuit of these things. Had we won every event, we'd still have old sewers and transit lines, just no global events to link them to.
I'm not a bread not circuses guy, I'll buy my own bread thanks, but I want a city that works, without the circus dependence. So, keep your offers of bread and circuses, but build us a DRL, bury the utilities lines, fix the sewers and infrastructure, etc.
Last edited:
MetroMan
Senior Member
Seeing the presentation and unanimous positive deputations of influential and powerful lobbies, with the business community stepping forward to cover the bid and with the federal government giving indications of support, I cannot imagine Mayor Tory and the Executive turning this down.
The vast coalition of support that Councillor Wong Tam managed to compile is impressive. She really has all her ducks in a row. If the city were to reject this, there would not be any other international event that they could agree to hosting. I would be absolutely stunned if this doesn't pass.
The vast coalition of support that Councillor Wong Tam managed to compile is impressive. She really has all her ducks in a row. If the city were to reject this, there would not be any other international event that they could agree to hosting. I would be absolutely stunned if this doesn't pass.
Euphoria
Active Member
A once in a century (millennium?) transformative opportunity for sure. Have any themes been bandied about? I'd think something like the carbon-neutral city? Coming up on the 50th anniversary of Expo 67, I still can't believe Montreal pulled it off...
https://youtu.be/8gRTF0jhsq8
https://youtu.be/8gRTF0jhsq8
animatronic
Senior Member
It was pretty sickening to watch. A bunch of pandering BS by a few people who stand to make a lot of money from this sinkhole of tax dollars.
The offer to have business fund the assessment should be turned down due to the massive conflict of interest. If the city needs external advice it must be independent.
MetroMan
Senior Member
I like the idea of a carbon neutral city as a theme.
Councillor Shelley Carroll suggested a theme around naturalizing urban landscapes given the critical role that naturalizing the Don River plays in building the Expo. Without the Don Naturalization there are no Portlands and hence no Expo.
Naturalizing Our Urban Landscape is a theme with a lot of potential. While side streets in our neighbourhoods are lush with greenery and our tree canopy is an envy of the world, our major streets are left wanting. They're concrete landscapes with few and dying trees. We could use the Expo as a catalyst to renew our public realm by burying power lines and planting viable trees along our major streets with proper roots and drainage infrastructure. Silva Cells on all our major streets. Imagine what Queen Street or University Av would look lined with healthy trees!
I like Carroll's theme but I also like yours and they can work in tandem. Naturalizing urban landscapes can lead to a carbon neutral city.
Councillor Shelley Carroll suggested a theme around naturalizing urban landscapes given the critical role that naturalizing the Don River plays in building the Expo. Without the Don Naturalization there are no Portlands and hence no Expo.
Naturalizing Our Urban Landscape is a theme with a lot of potential. While side streets in our neighbourhoods are lush with greenery and our tree canopy is an envy of the world, our major streets are left wanting. They're concrete landscapes with few and dying trees. We could use the Expo as a catalyst to renew our public realm by burying power lines and planting viable trees along our major streets with proper roots and drainage infrastructure. Silva Cells on all our major streets. Imagine what Queen Street or University Av would look lined with healthy trees!
I like Carroll's theme but I also like yours and they can work in tandem. Naturalizing urban landscapes can lead to a carbon neutral city.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Does carbon neutral cancel out the carbon produced by its inhabitants? This would presumably cover the resources and energy to produce and consume the inputs I utilize every year. So, the food fed to the cow I ate for supper, and the resources needed to produce that cow feed. The resources each time my wife and I had a kid, with that kid compounding to my carbon use since by his very existence the kid is a drain on the system, like the rest of us.
My question is, what do we define as carbon neutrality? How many layers do we peel on this onion?
Euphoria
Active Member
I agree that "the carbon neutral city" might be too fraught and unrealistic, and it begs all sorts of statistical analysis that could undermine the very positive aspirations and advances that such a theme might spur. "Naturalizing Our Urban Landscape" serves much the same function without the pretensions to greatness. It's probably a better theme.
rbt
Senior Member
Carbon neutral typically means a carbon lifecycle of under 20 years (plant, burn, air, plant). So 100% of the carbon which is in the air as a result of some energy use is within a plant shortly after.
Growing algae, creating gasoline from that algae, burning that gasoline isn't all that bad because the time-cycle is short. There is no net-change in carbon in the atmosphere. The big issue with carbon is we're taking what was sequestered millions of years ago and pumping it into the atmosphere all at once.
I'm not at all sure how naturalization helps. Grow trees, cut down trees (diseased, in the way, ...), chip them for mulch, then let them decompose; no or very minimal net sequestering of carbon. That doesn't offset mined resources used very much at all.
animatronic
Senior Member
TonyV
Senior Member
Count me in as "for" winning a bid and having a great world's fair, but I will be truly frank with all of you --- I think the bid is already dead in the water and I mean it -- dead, due to those around us who feel that we must first of all achieve perfection as a society before having the fair. Oh, the countless problems, those countless problems (that a fair may help solve). Has any city, anywhere, solved their problems before showing off a little? I can tell you a whole lot about New York's social problems or those of LA -- but those people have no collective conscience issues from being the centre of the universe now and then, and people benefit from that.
The worst part of this is chief detractor John Tory. Isn't he supposed to take on the role of head cheerleader? He's already pouring cold water on the bid. With friends like that who needs enemies.
Kill the bid now and spare us the agony of the hand-wringing. Just get a whif of this dung from Marcus Gee in yesterday's Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...out-a-toronto-world-expo-bid/article30132385/
The worst part of this is chief detractor John Tory. Isn't he supposed to take on the role of head cheerleader? He's already pouring cold water on the bid. With friends like that who needs enemies.
Kill the bid now and spare us the agony of the hand-wringing. Just get a whif of this dung from Marcus Gee in yesterday's Globe and Mail:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...out-a-toronto-world-expo-bid/article30132385/
animatronic
Senior Member
It's not about "achieving perfection first" or some other strawman argument. Big bang events like Olympics and Worlds Fairs are phenomenally inefficient and ineffective tools for city building and economic development. There's a century of data to prove it. If you really love Toronto you should be supporting stable, long-term investments in infrastructure, culture and the arts, not some half-assed one time party that nobody will attend.
TonyV
Senior Member
Twaddle, cruddy crap. Stable long-term investments I support, but the reality is that here, that just never happens. All the while, the fair is something that could get another dimension to this town. I believe there are benefits to be had from it. Too bad Tory & Co. are already dumping on the concept. The people who don't know how to dream are the ones who will kill this bid.