Toronto Party Transportation Plan

[Second_in_pie]

^^ Not to mention that the bridge would most probably still be under the condo skyline which would block resident's view anyways.

I'd think that the bridge would only be 2 or 3 times as high as the Gardiner and rail corridor are now. Starting at Roncesvales and then slowly rising up to peak at the Humber River, then ending at around Park Lawn could do great things for the area. It would allow High Park to open straight up into the Bay, while also allowing for a more integrated neighborhood around Windermere/S. Kingsway, where there's a lot of condo development right now. And without the Gardiner cramping up space, it might allow developers more room along the west side of the bay before the turnoff at Park Lawn, and also bridging the gaps between the lake and the neighborhood. Also quite importantly, it would allow for the mouth of the Humber to be naturalized (whatever the word is.)

 

[adma]

For resident's I wonder what would appeal to them more a highway in their backyard or a bridge in their views of the lake. Personally (assuming the bridge were well designed and architecturally intersting) I would think that the removal of the highway from the area far outweighs the visual incursion of a bridge in Humber Bay.

Yet the funny thing is--how fatally "in their backyard" is the Gardiner, in the end? We're not talking about a Cross-Bronx community-cleaving ditch, after all--not even in Parkdale, relatively speaking; and the railway and other "utilities", power lines et al, preexisted the highway, so it isn't like there hasn't always been a "barrier" of sorts here. (And it certainly hasn't stood in the way of condo development alongside in Swansea--which, I suppose, hasn't been marketed as if the Gardiner were going away anytime soon.)

My feeling is, those who are NIMBY/enviro-hyperactive over eliminating the Gardiner in their backyard would rather eliminate it holus bolus and say screw-you to commuters; and only the most hyperactive "anti-lefty" scaremongerers would claim that's in store under a Smitherman/Pantalone mayoralty. I mean, it isn't like there aren't problems begging to be remedied within the present status quo, whether from a transport-planning or urban-aesthetic POV--but they're better remedied incrementally through such things as the decking-over/reconfiguration of the Jameson snarl. Ultimately, the constituency that loathes the Gardiner so much that they're willing to advocate even a "well designed and architecturally interesting" bridge across Humber Bay doesn't extend far beyond wide-eyed message-boarders with little real clue as to ground-level conditions (physically *and* sociologically) in Toronto. Anyone else would roll their eyes at such a overwrought, heavy-handed retro-Robert-Moses boondoggle--even those who loathe the Gardiner as it stands. Like, if you think the fooferaw the Rossi tunnel proposal has sparked is loud, well...

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

You know, looking at this map, I think Highway 448 is not that bad. While I can see increased congestion where it meets the DVP, it could produce some relief from the 404/DVP/401 interchange where about a dozen lanes merge into 3. Most of Scarborough is already very car oriented, so I can't see how this highway would further encourage car oriented development. Finally it looks as if it could be built with little if any destruction to private property.

Fortunately with the improvements to GO in the coming decade(s), it may render such a highway obsolete. However if any new highway were to be built in Toronto, one could make a good case for this one.

True. Plus the fact Durham will demand this makes it a good idea from a conservative prespective.

 

[GraphicMatt]

^^ Not to mention that the bridge would most probably still be under the condo skyline which would block resident's view anyways.

Buildings aren't barriers. The Gardiner discussion is about having more than just a nice view of the lake. It's about access.

I am (I guess) a card-carrying member of the War on Cars but I wouldn't advocate doing much with the western part of the Gardiner beyond trying to figure out how to bury it. Yes, it was probably a mistake to put it where it is, but it's there. Unlike in the east, development has happened around it in most places.

 

[Hipster Duck]

Do you think Rob \ford can get any of this done?

Rob Ford will not be able to get anything done, including the stuff he wants. That's what happens when you're an oppose-for-the-sake-of-opposing jackass in council for 15 years and then you wake up, find out that you're the mayor, and have to get things passed in a weak mayoral system where you have no friends.

 

[nfitz]

Rob Ford will not be able to get anything done, including the stuff he wants.

Sure he can. He can appoint all the TTC commissioners. He can appoint all the executive committee. He won't be all powerful, but he'll be able to do stuff. Like cancel contracts.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Rob Ford will not be able to get anything done, including the stuff he wants. That's what happens when you're an oppose-for-the-sake-of-opposing jackass in council for 15 years and then you wake up, find out that you're the mayor, and have to get things passed in a weak mayoral system where you have no friends.

Good Call......

 

[adma]

I am (I guess) a card-carrying member of the War on Cars but I wouldn't advocate doing much with the western part of the Gardiner beyond trying to figure out how to bury it. Yes, it was probably a mistake to put it where it is, but it's there. Unlike in the east, development has happened around it in most places.

Except presently around Windermere, it's a stretch to claim that "development has happened around it"--after all, it occupies a de facto utilities corridor and most everything to the south is waterfront parkland and ancillary uses. (Remember that the building of the Gardiner in the 50s was part alibi to create waterfront parkland from the ghost of Sunnyside and Parkdale's southern reaches.)

Perhaps the "utilities corridor" element should be considered; even more so than downtown, it's a case where the Gardiner augmented an existing barrier rather than creating one anew. Rebuild the Gardiner out into Humber Bay, and you still have a railway etc to contend with. And as my above expropriation point paradoxically indicates, maybe (as with Toronto Islands) the 50s tendency t/w sterile parkland over "urbanity" has more to answer for than the Gardiner in and of itself...

 

[W. K. Lis]

Dowling Avenue, looking south over the railway bridge into the residences between Lake Shore and the railway. You can see the hydro towers in the distance, where were buried in the 1950's.

Today, south of that bridge, is the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Blvd.. The Toronto Party wants to destroy other residences for their "improvements".

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Dowling Avenue, looking south over the railway bridge into the residences between Lake Shore and the railway. You can see the hydro towers in the distance, where were buried in the 1950's.

Today, south of that bridge, is the Gardiner Expressway and Lake Shore Blvd.. The Toronto Party wants to destroy other residences for their "improvements".

wow.

Toronto does a pourus job of preserving history.

 

[adma]

Though that south-of-the-bridge stuff vanished in the 1950s, when it'd probably have vanished *anywhere* under similar circumstances. It isn't like it happened in the past generation or anything...

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Though that south-of-the-bridge stuff vanished in the 1950s, when it'd probably have vanished *anywhere* under similar circumstances. It isn't like it happened in the past generation or anything...

It would have been nice to have today though.