Billy Bishop Airport Expansion?

[innsertnamehere]

I really don’t think the province intends to take the whole island - just that the legislation identifies the PINs they need and the island just so happens to be one giant parcel. All they probably need is a small sliver along the airport close to Hanlons Point beach, but to do that they need to list the PIN and that PIN covers the whole island.

Again it comes back to piss-poor communications here. The province needs to actually show what they are planning so people can actually understand it.

 

[Ward8]

Who moved there when an airport existed.

To be fair to these people, they're not protesting the agreement that was in place when they moved there.

Reducing the 'allowable developable heights' brings the Portlands back to the original plan which I think is a great thing. We've had the real estate bubble burst which may result in smaller buildings without the BB expansion anyway.

This, to me, is the most disqualifying issue with the expansion plan. To kneecap housing development in an area that was painstakingly rehabilitated at enormous cost is unconscionable to me. Particularly when the benefit is so minimal. The original densities were scandalous at the time. I don't think we should compromise a generational city building project for what amounts to a couple of extra destinations that could be served from Pearson anyway.

Again it comes back to piss-poor communications here. The province needs to actually show what they are planning so people can actually understand it.

It could also be that the government is not communicating because they believe that their plan will be unpopular.

 

[afransen]

This is also being done with zero meaningful consultation on the trade offs.

 

[generalcanada]

I really don’t think the province intends to take the whole island - just that the legislation identifies the PINs they need and the island just so happens to be one giant parcel. All they probably need is a small sliver along the airport close to Hanlons Point beach, but to do that they need to list the PIN and that PIN covers the whole island.

Again it comes back to piss-poor communications here. The province needs to actually show what they are planning so people can actually understand it.

Here is the quote from the province:

“We will work with the city to divide the relevant PINs to narrow the land required to only what’s needed as quickly as possible," the spokesperson said.

So basically telling the city. these land parcels, we need to split.

 

[robmausser]

The fact that the Federal government isn't putting an immediate stop to this is the most disappointing of all. Sure, defer to the Province who has power over the city but there's no reason to join in on the beating. It's clear Torontonians don't want this and Doug Ford is forcing it over the desires of Torontonians and federal Liberals do have to answer to their Toronto ridings. Carney is popular now but he won't be forever. I can see downtown ridings turning orange next election.

The Feds have wanted this for years. They just did what the city wanted in terms of the triparted. Now they can blame the province for this and get what they always wanted.

 

[TRONto]

This, to me, is the most disqualifying issue with the expansion plan. To kneecap housing development in an area that was painstakingly rehabilitated at enormous cost is unconscionable to me. Particularly when the benefit is so minimal. The original densities were scandalous at the time. I don't think we should compromise a generational city building project for what amounts to a couple of extra destinations that could be served from Pearson anyway.

How do you see the current plan happening now with the market crash? When the market picks back up it'll be geared to end users again which inherently means smaller buildings. The market would dictate smaller buildings now regardless.

AI comparison of the 2 plans:

• Early Visions (circa 2010–2014): The early framework emphasized a predominantly mid-rise character. The goal was to create a human-scaled, "vertical community" feel that avoided the overwhelming skyscraper aesthetic common in other parts of the downtown core. While tall buildings were not strictly prohibited, they were intended to be limited and strategically placed rather than the defining feature of the skyline.
• Current Reality (2026): The current plan for Ookwemin Minising (Villiers Island) explicitly allows for much higher density to meet critical housing targets. Current zoning and development plans include towers ranging from 19 to 46 storeys. However, these heights are now subject to strict constraints, including potential caps on the western edge due to the flight paths and expansion requirements of the nearby Billy Bishop Airport.

Just as the discussion is of the beauty of the waterfront, a mid-rise "human-scaled" community provides a much better end result than the current plan. An example would be the Canary District being a much more liveable place than Liberty Village or CityPlace.

 

[afransen]

Why didn't they just order the city to divide the PINs in the legislation they just passed?

 

[TRONto]

And what good are any of those if the city, one by one, loses everything that makes it a place worth living in the first place? This is the problem with the whole post-WWII, neoliberal brand of "progress". Just because it's desirable for us to move forward as a society doesn't mean we need to steamroll everything pleasant that we come across in our travels. We aren't talking about building on some random meadow here; the Toronto Islands are fairly unique geographical location, they are a beloved getaway spot right in the city, they are a significant recreational and tourist area, and an important part of the overall fabric of the city. How is it desirable for this to be at least jeopardized, if not entirely eliminated, so that we can expand an airport?

Is it a problem for Paris to have the Notre Dame instead of an airport in their core? Does Vienna struggle by having the Stephansdom instead of an airport in the city centre? What about Budapest with their Országház, or the Prague Castle? Should Central Park also be paved over and an airport be built there, too?

The very notion of having an airport right next to downtown could only have come about because the city planners of yesteryear had no sense for the aesthetic, and allowed industrial development along the entirety of our coastline. Now that the coastline has been converted into a vibrant mixed use district, it is beyond inappropriate, and the idea of expanding it at the expense of more green space is sick. If it makes me a NIMBY to not blindly promote progress at the expense of all other things that bring flavour and pleasure to life, so be it. I'll even get a NIMBY tattoo. Let's not degrade a fantastic place to exist so that we can make a bunch of businessmen happy.

I'm working with the assumption that the expansion is limited to increasing the runway length (the islands otherwise stay as is). If the city has to lose Norway park, it sucks but still worth the tradeoff.

I love the Toronto Islands but Notre Dame, etc is definitely a completely different class of place.

The country has spent a decade in declining wealth due to an attitude of regulating instead of building. Let's get on with building and creating a more dynamic economy.