Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[Whoaccio]

People who irrationally hate the Gardiner do not accept the fact that we have no alternate routes. Whether one wishes the auto away or not, truck traffic alone is becoming unmanagable in this city. Without the Gardiner we would have chaos and, eventually, property values would come down because the majority of people who do have cars will find it unbearable to live anywhere in the core.

To some extent it is happening now, as more growth is occuring outside the 416 area than within.

That runs counter to reality though. Cities with many freeways, like LA, have lower property values. Yea, Toronto has seen suburbanization with the 905 developing faster than the 416. So has every city in N. America. Oddly, the cities that have the lowest core values are the ones with the most highways. Take Phoenix, no shortage of urban freeways, yet property values are lower than African levels. You can sub in any city as well, Atlanta, LA, Houston ect... Perhaps unsurprisingly, the cities with the highest downtown real estate values in N. America are those with the least freeways (SF, NYC, TO, Vancouver).

 

[Dichotomy]

Normally, I"d walk to the Eaton Center, but during one nasty blizzard last December the sidewalks nor any of the side streets had been ploughed yet, so we drove to the Bay (free parking on Sunday with purchase of more than $40) and we spent the afternoon in the Eaton Center.


You live at Yonge and Bloor? I just guessing that taking the two subway stops to Dundas would be faster than driving through a blizzard and then trying to find underground parking in the Eaton Centre's vaults.

Driving is often hell, but it is still faster and more convenient than the TTC. No contest.

Then I suggest that we spend the money needed for the TTC to go above and beyond driving in the city. I'm sorry to say, but I still think you're a dying breed, Dichotomy. Driving's going to get a lot worse before it gets any better.

I live in Sherbourne/Wellesley area, for the record. I walked my dog through the knee deep snow that morning and my partner and I decided it was too arduous (none of the sidewalks had been ploughed by 11 a.m., BTW) to walk to the subway. Judging by the total lack of pedestrian traffic, I would say our thoughts were in the majority that Sunday.
My perspective of this city seems to differ with many on this board because
a) I drive and have driven for 30+ years in this city
b) having a dog, I use all the parks, far and wide 12 months of the year
c) I've owned a few bicycles in my day and would rather take it up to Albion Hills for a fun afternoon of cycling, than navigate any of the streets in this city.

Turning Toronto into someone's version of Algonquin Park is not going to happen. This is a city, first.

 

[Dichotomy]

By your accounting, potentially thousands of jobs in a wide range of fields and pay-scales aren't as great as a few dozen 'good jobs' at a cement plant. Screw the plans for a new community, let's build an oil refinery and a truck plant! Or maybe you'd be satisfied with a few Mennonite clans tilling the polluted portlands soil and hewing driftwood for end tables and bedroom separates

Can we move the Gardiner to Hamilton where it'll keep the good steel mill jobs company?

Not sure what your point is there, but pardon me, your elitism is showing, sir.
A cement plant or dockyard would benefit this city more than more condos. Do we really need more condos? If there are no jobs (other than retail and government), who is going to have the money to afford the lovely, new condos? Eventually, we are going to run out of HK students and Russian emigres to populate them.

 

[Whoaccio]

Not sure what your point is there, but pardon me, your elitism is showing, sir.
A cement plant or dockyard would benefit this city more than more condos. Do we really need more condos? If there are no jobs (other than retail and government), who is going to have the money to afford the lovely, new condos? Eventually, we are going to run out of HK students and Russian emigres to populate them.

Not necessarily, hence why the cement plant closed. There are certain jobs, like meat packers or textiles, that simply wont return no matter how many highways we build or what we do. Most of the industrial jobs that existed in the 1970s only existed because of tariff walls, which screw everybody. Cement plants on high value real estate just don't make sense. Economics dictate they move to low value industrial areas. If you actually wanted to promote industry, we should build docks in Burlington or Hamilton where they could actually feed industrial uses. The docks/waterfront will not host industrial properties because it doesn't make sense in a world of globalization.

 

[Glen]

Not necessarily, hence why the cement plant closed. There are certain jobs, like meat packers or textiles, that simply wont return no matter how many highways we build or what we do. Most of the industrial jobs that existed in the 1970s only existed because of tariff walls, which screw everybody. Cement plants on high value real estate just don't make sense. Economics dictate they move to low value industrial areas. If you actually wanted to promote industry, we should build docks in Burlington or Hamilton where they could actually feed industrial uses. The docks/waterfront will not host industrial properties because it doesn't make sense in a world of globalization.

We could all play this game choosing pathological examples of which types of industries are viable in certain locations. That is not the point. This city needs jobs. It is already 250,000 jobs shy of its estimates. More ground floor retail is not going to fill the gap. Maybe a high-tech campus or and R & D park.

The city should be focused on making this underutilized land attractive for employment purposes. As I mentioned earlier, increasing residential is a fools game in Toronto. It is like buying socks for a dollar, selling them for 50 cents and expecting to make up the difference on volume.

IMO, here are the pertinent questions that must be answered:

Does the Gardiner impose a real impediment to non residential use?
Would its removal negatively effect it?
Will removing it make the area overly attractive for residential redevelopment to the detriment of non residential?

 

[Whoaccio]

We could all play this game choosing pathological examples of which types of industries are viable in certain locations. That is not the point. This city needs jobs. It is already 250,000 jobs shy of its estimates. More ground floor retail is not going to fill the gap. Maybe a high-tech campus or and R & D park.

Yes, it is the point. When someone argues that Toronto should try to get it's cement plant back on the waterfront or that loosing a heavily subsidized textiles factory was a sign of government incompetence, they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Manufacturing, in any shape or form, is not coming into the core again.

Attracting white collar work is an entirely different bag. I agree that providing jobs is a requisite for any successful community but, it could be argued that "knowledge" businesses would be more attracted by an pleasant environment than by a dilapidated expressway.

Personally, I think the educational component of the waterfront plans should be greatly expanded. The main determinant on the density of R&D or "new economy" jobs in an area is the presence of quality higher education. Waterloo has UofW and the P.I, Silicon Valley has an orgy of CalTech, Berkley ect.., Pittsburgh has Carnegie-Mellon and so forth.

 

[GraphicMatt]

Industrial jobs are a lost cause for any major metropolitan city. A lot of the jobs created are going to be in the Service sector, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're all going to be McJobs -- the service sector contains all sorts of white-collar, high-paying jobs.

Cities need to attract skilled works to stay competitive. Things like tearing down ugly 70s-era structures can help in this area. Aside from the truly dichotomous, people don't move to the city hoping that they can drive everywhere.

 

[Glen]

Yes, it is the point. When someone argues that Toronto should try to get it's cement plant back on the waterfront or that loosing a heavily subsidized textiles factory was a sign of government incompetence, they clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Manufacturing, in any shape or form, is not coming into the core again.

The reality is that both of those might be better (not optimal) than the residential option. Every one thousand residential units would require ~3.3 million per year in "subsidises". From a financial perspective, spending money to loose more money is stupid. The simplest question to ask about this whole issue is what will produce the best outcome and, at worst, be revenue neutral. It may be that leaving the Gardiner in place and accepting any type of non residential development is the best option.

 

[Dichotomy]

Industrial jobs are a lost cause for any major metropolitan city. A lot of the jobs created are going to be in the Service sector, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're all going to be McJobs -- the service sector contains all sorts of white-collar, high-paying jobs.

Cities need to attract skilled works to stay competitive. Things like tearing down ugly 70s-era structures can help in this area. Aside from the truly dichotomous, people don't move to the city hoping that they can drive everywhere.

Well, I guess all those garages on Queen's Quay must be empty, then.

Oh, and yes, those new townhouses at the foot of Coxwell - no cars there! The Outer Harbor Marina - yep, empty parking lot. Ashbridges Bay parking lot on a Saturday - empty again! Sunnyside - acres of empty parking.
That must be why the Porsche dealer relocated to Front St. No market there.

This debate can go on ad nauseum. This reminds me of the old blow bote/stink pot (sail boat/power boat) wars I'd see on blogger sites and mags. Both sides feel the other side is obtuse and short-sighted. It's not the hard heads on the extremes of this issue that are important, it's the silent 80% in the middle. That is where this fight will be won. Cooler heads will prevail.

 

[MisterF]

You made the claim that Chicago has tall buildings right up to the waterfront, which is not entirely true. Only when you go north of the Chicago River are there tall buildings along the waterfront, and even those are behind Lakeshore Drive. In the 'core' itself, there are marinas, promenades and Millenium Park. Even the south end is undergoing a transformation with the connecting of new and old parks.

It's very true. Grant Park is grand and all, but there's a good 30 blocks of downtown Chicago waterfront that looks like this:

That's not at a fringe location either, it's in the area of the John Hancock Building and North Michigan Ave. Yes, the tall buildings are behind Lakeshore Drive, but it's a moot point because Toronto's tall buildings are behind Queen's Quay. And Queen's Quay is a lot more attactive than the above picture. There's no part of central Toronto's waterfront that doesn't have, or won't have, marinas, promenades, and parks.

Let's talk about North America, since that is where we are located, unless you plan on moving Toronto to Europe. None of the cities I have travelled in have the same mess with their tiny downtown streets like we do. Miami, Vancouver, Los Angeles, Chicago, Montreal - hell, Edmonton, for Gawd's sake, have 6 and 8 lane arterial roads out of their cores and mid-town.

What does Toronto have, exactly? Spadina is 6 lanes for a short stump. University Avenue twists and turns around Queen's Park, then becomes a residential street as it twists around Upper Canada College. Yonge, Mt. Pleasant, Bloor/Danforth - even Eglinton through the center core, are all 4 lanes at best. Don't get me started about Queen, King and Dundas: narrow and useless. You show me a way any of those streets can be widened to 6 lanes and I will support the tear down of the Gardiner 1000%

Another nice rant, but it doesn't address what I typed. I guess you don't have any proof that tearing down waterfront freeways makes property values crash.

You show me how our transit system in any way compares to London or Paris.

You've unwittingly refuted your own argument again! You're making my job easy. Those cities are harder to get around by car and have superior transit systems. Clearly mass transit is the answer for urban mobility. By the way, Toronto more closely resembles European cities with its transit ridership than most North American cities.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Most of the industrial jobs that existed in the 1970s only existed because of tariff walls, which screw everybody.

Just wait until Castro is dead and Cuba opens up, and the USA agrees to take Cuban sugar directly. Redpath (or whatever it's now called) will shut down their Toronto plant PDQ.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Where's this figure come from?

The reality is that both of those might be better (not optimal) than the residential option. Every one thousand residential units would require ~3.3 million per year in "subsidises". From a financial perspective, spending money to loose more money is stupid. The simplest question to ask about this whole issue is what will produce the best outcome and, at worst, be revenue neutral. It may be that leaving the Gardiner in place and accepting any type of non residential development is the best option.

1000 residential units cost $3.3M in 'subsidies'? What kind of subsidies would that be? From the City's point of view, every residential unit is a property tax bonanza, not to mention the developer's charges. That's why Mississauga has remained debt-free all these years.

IMO, y'all are confusing two arguments. The 401 and arterial highways are one thing, and where those arterial highways stop when they get to the inner city is a second. What the City has decided to do is say 'the city centre starts at Cherry and Lakeshore now. You'll still be able to get into downtown by car, it's just that 50km/hr starts 5 minutes earlier.

I agree with the poster who said that what you need downtown are downtown-style jobs. White-collar, intellectual, high density as face-to-face meetings are more important than room to bash steel. So -- Corus. George Brown. Telus. RBC Dexia. Even FilmPort, despite its run-ins with its major constituents (not as good an example as they need space). You also need to balance parks/green/tourism with housing/jobs -- so, condos and boardwalks.

This might be sounding like a paen to TEDCO and Waterfront Toronto, but I think they're actually headed (finally) in the right direction.

 

[urbanfan89]

Would you ever trust the government when it comes to money numbers? Read: Skydome. Read: MFP scandal. Read: Pickering refurbishment. They deliberately give BS numbers to hoodwink us.

The government didn't put those arguments out. You did. Nice rant anyways.

I wouldn't trust the so-called free market either. They're the ones who created funny home mortgage instruments that are damaging the world economy much worse than any amount of bureaucracy can.

Also, it's funny how you think the city should encourage more industry (i.e. interfering with the free markets) to move back into the core when *NO OTHER MAJOR CITY HAS FACTORIES IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE* thanks to free markets. This isn't 1950 with high tariff walls, transport costs, and a lack of cheap labour in China.

There are plenty of developers waiting to cash in on a quick buck if the Gardiner came down, and I am sure (temporarily at least) property values would rise as suckers bought from pretty design brochures, but once everything was built and the Gardiner removed, a lot of people would wonder "WTF happened?"

And I'm sure property values will skyrocket to Tokyo-in-1989 levels if we just paved over half the city for more highways.

Personally, I am holding my breath about what Liberty Village and all the development on the old railroad lines around Spadina are going to do to traffic as it is. The Gardiner currently is gridlocked east and west in the mornings. That's progress!

So what successful city does not have traffic issues?

 

[Glen]

1000 residential units cost $3.3M in 'subsidies'? What kind of subsidies would that be? From the City's point of view, every residential unit is a property tax bonanza, not to mention the developer's charges.

It is the difference between what the city spends, on average, per household and what it collects. Where do you think your tax dollars go?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

However, this does NOT automatically support the assertion that increase in the number of households will result in an increase of the per unit subsidy from the commercial sector. In fact, with the shift of the property tax share towards the residential sector, this scenario is unlikely.

AoD