News   May 17, 2024
Masterplanned Community Proposed Near Northfield ION in Waterloo
 3K     5 
News   May 17, 2024
Sevoy's 1515 Pickering Parkway to Join Pickering's Growing Downtown
 2.1K     3 
News   May 17, 2024
Canada’s Most Important Transit Oriented Development
 11K     10 

Roads: Gardiner Expressway

Dichotomy said:
Holy out-of-context-Batman: I was responding to Urbanboom's (ridiculous) assertion that inclement weather is somehow better to walk in than drive.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I know--in practice, it is. Though of course, it depends where you're going, and under what circumstances--but when it comes to a quick nip to a nearby Shoppers or the nearby Y, bad weather is terrific incentive to leave the car at home for a change. And in a more urban-philosophical sense, one might even say that inclement weather is a natural "localizer", i.e. it forces us to do things within a more compact, pedestrian-friendly radius.

As to your remarks: having lived in Collingwood for 11 years, I would drive t through any blizzard this city can throw at me, including last winter (which would constitute a 'normal' winter for Collingwood/Orillia.)
Click to expand...
Yeah, but given your speed-bump habits, if car ownership is like marriage, you're pretty much an unreconstructed spousal abuser, anyway...

Besides, Collingwood/Orillia isn't Toronto. And if you find Toronto's worse off for the fact, that's your problem.
 
urbanboom said:
Two Words: Carrot, Stick.

If you take down the Gardiner, you piss off enough drivers so that they throw in the towel and take public transit. The TTC/GO then see massive ridership increases. All levels of government actually make make the proper investments into public transit.
Click to expand...

How is that improving Transit? You're just social engineering, and spending $400 Million to do it. Why isn't that $400 Million better spent on addressing the real issue; insufficient transit options?

You can't change habits without a punishment and a reward.
Click to expand...

What a bleak and depressing view. No wonder it leads to destructive solutions.
 
Why isn't that $400 Million better spent on addressing the real issue; insufficient transit options?


The TTC isn't going to get more money from the province on top of MoveOntario2020. But, if the TTC saw unforseen growth from the fall of freeways, Queen's Park could turn up the heat even more.

What a bleak and depressing view. No wonder it leads to destructive solutions.

Yes it is. Listening to rants from people who sound like urban planners from the 40s have taken its toll.

But it does work. That's the theory behind streetcar right-of-ways, too. Sarcozy's also using it in France to end over-socialism.
 
TKTKTK said:
I live right by Parliament St. I *know* the reason you're hesitant to walk down to the end of Parliament isn't because of the Gardiner - it's because of the very low, stinking, dripping, rusting, rail bridge you have to cross under at the foot of the street. The Gardiner at that part is in fairly good repair, certainly in much, much better shape than the rail bridge (also, the Gardiner is much higher).

I don't even really like driving under the rail bridge; I have to close the roof, lest something wicked dirty drips inside.

(the first two photos are of the Lake Shore / Parliament intersection, and the other two are of Lake Shore / Cherry)
Click to expand...

Hey, we're almost neighbours.

I don't much like the rail bridge either, but that's much smaller and easier to fix. The city likely would have devoted some funds to improving it if residents were demanding it. I'd be surprised if it's not somewhere in WaterfronToronto's plans.

The unpleasantness of physically crossing under the Gardiner is only one component of the argument for its removal. The other, maybe more important piece, is that it's much harder to build ANYTHING adjacent to an elevated highway. The Gardiner removal frees up so much prime, lakefront land.

Absolutely. Which is why it's insane to spend $400 Million on dismantling something that serves a purpose and is used (albeit, not over-used), rather than spending it on something that's lacking and wanted (hint: public transit).
Click to expand...

Financial arguments don't hold. Removing that part of Gardiner is a wash in the near-term, as it'll cost just as much to maintain and refurbish it over the next few decades. Long-term, things are still up in the air (and for debate), but it seems to me like the city could see significant financial benefit due to a revitalized waterfront.

The argument shouldn't be framed as "do we expand public transit or tear down a piece of the Gardiner?" We should absolutely do both. Concurrently. LRT & other transit needs to extend all the way to the lake -- we can't just cut things off at Front street.
 
urbanboom said:
Why isn't that $400 Million better spent on addressing the real issue; insufficient transit options?


The TTC isn't going to get more money from the province on top of MoveOntario2020. But, if the TTC saw unforseen growth from the fall of freeways, Queen's Park could turn up the heat even more.
Click to expand...

Because there isn't a current understanding that Transit ridership will only increase in the future?

If the current climate isn't enough to convince our politicians that Public Transit is something they need to take seriously from a funding standpoint - then tearing down a section of the Gardiner, and spending an extra $400 Million, isn't likely to help either.

I hadn't realized Martyrization was an Urban Planning tool.

What a bleak and depressing view. No wonder it leads to destructive solutions.

Yes it is. Listening to rants from people who sound like urban planners from the 40s have taken its toll.

But it does work. That's the theory behind streetcar right-of-ways, too. Sarcozy's also using it in France to end over-socialism.
Click to expand...


Making positive options negative, so you can artificially make another option seem more palatable, is just spin. It isn't planning of any sort; it's just marketing.
 
Also, urbanboom is right, and I don't think it's a bleak argument. If you build a city where driving is absolutely the fastest, more convenient and cheapest way to get around, people are going to drive EVERYWHERE. If there are high levels of traffic and it costs a lot to park, people are going to seek out alternative ways to get around.

And, to some level, cities do have to engineer this. Libertarian or free-market thinking doesn't really hold when you look at urban planning.
 
There is also the issue of urban design being more than just walking through a railway underpass. Think of the space along the berm - and the space along the Gardiner. Which one do you think is more pleasant to travel along?

But of course, we have been through this argument already.

Graphic Matt:

Actually, free market thinking could work - think of road space as goods that is subjected to pricing on the basis of supply and demand...but of course, I am sure those damned socialists would have none of it!

AoD
 
^^
Thank You, Matt.

If you build expressways, the cars will come. And vise versa.

If you build transit, the riders will come. (And vise versa)

If you get rid of any.... they stop coming that way and find an other!
 
GraphicMatt said:
Hey, we're almost neighbours.

I don't much like the rail bridge either, but that's much smaller and easier to fix. The city likely would have devoted some funds to improving it if residents were demanding it. I'd be surprised if it's not somewhere in WaterfronToronto's plans.

The unpleasantness of physically crossing under the Gardiner is only one component of the argument for its removal. The other, maybe more important piece, is that it's much harder to build ANYTHING adjacent to an elevated highway. The Gardiner removal frees up so much prime, lakefront land.
Click to expand...

Well, no, actually it doesn't. The section of the Gardiner we're talking about is either against the channel, or it's running pressed up against the rail embankment. There is no shortage of develop able land right now in that area, and any suggestion that the Gardiner is what's slowing progress is entirely disingenuous. The area is a wasteland because it's, well, an industrial wasteland.


Financial arguments don't hold. Removing that part of Gardiner is a wash in the near-term, as it'll cost just as much to maintain and refurbish it over the next few decades. Long-term, things are still up in the air (and for debate), but it seems to me like the city could see significant financial benefit due to a revitalized waterfront.
Click to expand...

The Gardiner, not being on the waterfront, is not standing in the way of its revitalization. Now, that derelict cement factory...why aren't Condos being built right next door?!
 
The Gardiner, not being on the waterfront, is not standing in the way of its revitalization. Now, that derelict cement factory...why aren't Condos being built right next door?!
Click to expand...

Actually, the plan is to have buildings against both the space the Gardiner is occupying right now and the cement factory. I guess either they're both on the waterfront or they both aren't eh?

AoD
 
GraphicMatt said:
Also, urbanboom is right, and I don't think it's a bleak argument. If you build a city where driving is absolutely the fastest, more convenient and cheapest way to get around, people are going to drive EVERYWHERE. If there are high levels of traffic and it costs a lot to park, people are going to seek out alternative ways to get around.
Click to expand...

So?

We need transit options of all stripes. We don't currently live in a city where we're in danger of running out of transit riders because they're racing to car ownership. We live in a city where public transit is already well-used, and will be well-used into the future (assuming it actually expands to accomodate future needs; which even with the 2020 plan it's somewhat behind). We simply do NOT need these invasive social engineering activities.

And, to some level, cities do have to engineer this. Libertarian or free-market thinking doesn't really hold when you look at urban planning
Click to expand...

Really? Because I believe Monderman has cut off the leg you're trying to stand on.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Actually, the provision of freely accessible highways IS a also a form of social engineering.
Click to expand...


I suppose the libertarian in me doesn't see anything untoward about allowing different options, as opposed to artificially restricting choice.

World view difference, I guess.
 
BTW, that's NOT a concrete factory - it's an abandoned silo.

I am quite aware of the location of both relative to the edge of the water (vs. the ambiguous term "waterfront") So are you saying that the presence of a relatively small structure like the silo have a greater impact on the developability AND desirability of that stretch of land, vs. the Gardiner?

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top