Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

[Jonny5]

Curious to see what their definition of "need" is.
A park at everyone's door is unrealistic, and anywhere with density is going to have a problem finding parkland at their door unless we revert back to lower density.

Yes, there must be some self-sorting going on in residence location that is obviously ignored in these maps. People moving in to the areas with no parkland are also generally people who have no interest or need to use it. It's rather ham-fisted of the City to treat the whole population as one replicated individual who requires use of parkland on average x days per year that is within y distance from their residence. That's like something out of jejeune 1980's urban planing someone learned from Sim City.

 

[Northern Light]

Not only that, but there is ample parkland on the island.

That map is indicating that parkland is needed IN those orange zones. Putting more parkland on the island isn't going to solve the problem like putting a subway station on the island won't solve the problem of more transit being needed downtown.

The rail deck park, if it ever happens, will do a lot to alleviate that issue.

Here's the problem w/that thesis, from the point of view of the City and the maps shown above.

The downtown population is somewhere around the 300,000 mark at this point and still growing.

The current stat shows that there is less than 4m2 per person of park space in downtown.

The goal is at least 12m2.

A difference not less than 8m2.

Multiply that by 300,000, you get 2.4M meters squared of park space required.

That's 240ha or 600 acres.

The entirety of downtown Toronto is ~14km2 excluding the Islands. Which is about 1,400ha or 3,000acres.

So we're short about 20% of all the land in downtown Toronto.

Lets be entirely clear; there is pretty much zero chance of hitting the 12m2 goal in downtown.

But if you want to get anywhere near close, there are only really 3 principle opportunities of sorts.

1) The Island Airport - 200 acres

2) Decking over the entire rail corridor as parkland (key problems here include that the entire eastern rail corridor is elevated and most people will not walk to walk up 3+ storeys of stairs to access a park (also presumes the cost of air rights and construction are otherwise affordable.)

Rail Deck Park as proposed - 9.3ha/23 acres.

Everything remaining eastward to Simcoe ~3ha/7.5 acres.

Eastern Corridor - 8ha/20acres (Yonge - Cherry)

3) Removal of Gardiner/DVP (below Eastern) - 20ha/50 acres ** (assumes you bury/remove Lakeshore Blvd as well, or place an elevated park over Lakeshore at grade.

****

All of that is nothing but hideously expensive, logistically challenging and much of it impractical and unlikely, even in the longer term.

You could pick up a small amount of space by narrowing/removing portions of Bayview, or consolidating the Bala Sub on the east side of the valley with the Don Branch (opening up park space connected to Bayview.

Even if you add all of that, and the Islands, you don't hit the theoretical goal.

****
In the end, without the Islands, you max out at 100 acres or so, plus maybe some additional land in the Don Valley......let's say 120 acres.

With the Islands, you get to 320 acres in that scenario, or just over 1/2 the shortfall.

But that assumes the downtown population stays largely flat.

If, as expected,it adds another 200,000+ you're almost back to where you started, even with all of the above.

All of which assumes we don't use one iota of that space for housing or other purposes.

I just don't see how its possible to meet the recreational/outdoors needs of our downtown without that space in the medium to long term.

 

[Northern Light]

Yes, there must be some self-sorting going on in residence location that is obviously ignored in these maps. People moving in to the areas with no parkland are also generally people who have no interest or need to use it. It's rather ham-fisted of the City to treat the whole population as one replicated individual who requires use of parkland on average x days per year that is within y distance from their residence. That's like something out of jejeune 1980's urban planing someone learned from Sim City.

I'm not sure that's true (people choosing areas because they don't value parks)

Of course, people are, in the greatest measure, choosing where they wish to live; but that's based on far more than parks; its based on where they work, their tolerance of commuting, whether they drive, what's available, what they can afford, a desire for good transit and walkable stores and lots of other factors too.

If one applied the self-sorting logic, we could use that to suggest not providing transit in the suburbs, after all, people self-sorted to areas where transit is poor.

Of course, in reality that wasn't most people's goal, and lots of suburbanites use transit and lots more would if the service were better, as Brampton has ably demonstrated.

****

Just as the suburbs will never have access to the level of transit found in downtown Toronto, it isn't reasonable to assume downtown will have the same quantity of parks/openspace.

But what is fair? 1/3 less per capita? 1/2 as much? When those same residents, by and large are also giving up back yards?

I'd accept that in light of a housing crisis; and other pressing needs, downtown will not get all of its 'ideal' amount of parks.

But we're so far from that now, that I don't see how we meet that goal without the single largest chunk of real estate in downtown.

 

[kEiThZ]

23L is entirely within Pearson's existing land and flight corridors isn't it? Do they even need to do an EA for that?

Didn't say they did. Just that the opposition when this inevitably comes up will be intense. And I'm willing to bet that the folks who are adamant that Billy Bishop be closed will be happy to label any opposition to that as NIMBYs.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Didn't say they did. Just that the opposition when this inevitably comes up will be intense. And I'm willing to bet that the folks who are adamant that Billy Bishop be closed will be happy to label any opposition to that as NIMBYs.

If you didn't strawman, your case might get more sympathy from me.

(Edited for clarity of meaning)

 

[Rainforest]

Probably true.



That is your opinion.

One with which I disagree.

Its also inconsistent with the parkland hectares per person standard set out in Toronto's Parkland Strategy.

This image show's Toronto's downtown care as an area of parkland need. (orange).

The Islands themselves are not; but they are the easiest source to fulfill the downtown need.

View attachment 309958

This image below ranks relative need by colour, red being the areas most short of parkland, orange being somewhat less bad:

View attachment 309960

Source: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...ision-plans-and-strategies/parkland-strategy/

But isn't is possible to add more green / park space to the Ontario Place lands? They are located very close to Billy Bishop.

 

[Northern Light]

But isn't is possible to add more green / park space to the Ontario Place lands? They are located very close to Billy Bishop.

While that is certainly plausible (though as Provincial land, beyond the City's control)..........

That pushes the distance of the parks ever further from where the people live and work.

The Islands are further than would be ideal; but in the absence of the airport, there is the tunnel at the foot of Bathurst.

If, to pick a random, near'ish spot in DT, we drew our distance line from King and Bathurst, its, 1.4km to the Island Aiport (post tunnel).

By contrast, its 2.4km to Ontario Place.

In terms of walking distance, neither are ideal, but the first is pretty manageable; the 2nd would be more than a 30m walk for most people.

DT is nominally defined as Bathurst to the Don Valley and the Lake to Bloor.

Obviously, the bulk of that population is well to the east of Bathurst, so we're low-balling walk time for both locations.

There just isn't much space closer, without spending very large amounts and removing lots of buildings.

 

[Rainforest]

While that is certainly plausible (though as Provincial land, beyond the City's control)..........

That pushes the distance of the parks ever further from where the people live and work.

The Islands are further than would be ideal; but in the absence of the airport, there is the tunnel at the foot of Bathurst.

If, to pick a random, near'ish spot in DT, we drew our distance line from King and Bathurst, its, 1.4km to the Island Aiport (post tunnel).

By contrast, its 2.4km to Ontario Place.

In terms of walking distance, neither are ideal, but the first is pretty manageable; the 2nd would be more than a 30m walk for most people.

DT is nominally defined as Bathurst to the Don Valley and the Lake to Bloor.

Obviously, the bulk of that population is well to the east of Bathurst, so we're low-balling walk time for both locations.

There just isn't much space closer, without spending very large amounts and removing lots of buildings.

I hear you, but I kind of think that the southern part of downtown is already relatively well endowed with parks.

Near the foot of Bathurst, one finds the Coronation park, the Fort York lands (less suitable for excersises, but green), then smaller Misucal Garden and Canoe Landing park. So, for those who live very close, the situation isn't bad as it stands.

For those who live in DT but further away, a park that replaces Billy Bishop will be at a considerable distance. If they are willing to travel there, then they can as well reach Ontario Place, or the Toronto Island park located right south of Billy Bishop.

However, if the majority of the locals prefer more park space and don't want the airport, that's fine with me. I can always use Pearson, not flying much anyway, and when I do, the difference between Pearson and BB is marginal.

All I know: if I was a DT resident, I would definitely want to keep the airport active, and would vote accordingly.

 

[Northern Light]

I hear you, but I kind of think that the southern part of downtown is already relatively well endowed with parks.

Near the foot of Bathurst, one finds the Coronation park, the Fort York lands (less suitable for excersises, but green), then smaller Misucal Garden and Canoe Landing park. So, for those who live very close, the situation isn't bad as it stands.

For those who live in DT but further away, a park that replaces Billy Bishop will be at a considerable distance. If they are willing to travel there, then they can as well reach Ontario Place, or the Toronto Island park located right south of Billy Bishop.

However, if the majority of the locals prefer more park space and don't want the airport, that's fine with me. I can always use Pearson, not flying much anyway, and when I do, the difference between Pearson and BB is marginal.

All I know: if I was a DT resident, I would definitely want to keep the airport active, and would vote accordingly.

An entirely fair take.

I've flown a fair bit; but always used Pearson.

I don't live downtown, though certainly spend my share of time there.

My leaning goes the other way from yours, but I too would defer to the wishes of the locals on the subject in the largest measure.

Though, if we can both agree that ideally downtown would have more parks than it does now, but further north relative to the more generous waterfront park system; the question reverts to the where and at what price.

The University Avenue idea (essentially narrowing the road plus consolidating the park-like space on one side may be a viable answer in some measure. (adds arguably 9 acres of park space). But will come with an 8-figure price tag as well.

It also doesn't address the need for sports fields, which demand large chunks of contiguous land.

But I'm open on how that gets done, in terms of better meeting demand.

 

[kEiThZ]

All I know: if I was a DT resident, I would definitely want to keep the airport active, and would vote accordingly.

Are we now building or closing down regional infrastructure based entirely on what locals want?

Again, why is this acceptable for YTZ, but not YYZ?

When people rail against "downtown elites", this is the exact kind of inconsistency and hypocrisy that comes to mind. Air traffic over suburbs filled with lower income immigrants (often with kids too)? Just fine. Upper income, more white, millionaire hoods? Well, we can't have that. It's discussions like these that should help everyone understand why politicians like the Fords win.

 

[kEiThZ]

If you didn't strawman, your case might get more sympathy from me.

(Edited for clarity of meaning)

Where's the strawman here?

There's folks in this thread literally advocating moving all traffic to from Billy Bishop to Pearson. That kind of increase, would hasten the requirement for the sixth runway. And somehow I don't imagine all those advocating for immediate closure of the airport, to be sympathetic to arguments against expanding Pearson.

I've argued that for reasons of competition and economic interest that airport can't be closed till we get HSR. That makes it both politically more feasible and lessens the economic impact of reduced competition.

 

[Northern Light]

To answer this question:

Are we now building or closing down regional infrastructure based entirely on what locals want?

That, would, of course, be a 'no'; the issue is one of considering public opinion in the context of competing policy objectives.

*****

Again, why is this acceptable for YTZ, but not YYZ?

The former is, of course, 17x larger in passenger volume than the latter; the latter is also a vastly more important site for moving cargo;

One might further note a vastly larger residential population in the immediate vicinity of the former, vs the latter.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Where's the strawman here?

There's folks in this thread literally advocating moving all traffic to from Billy Bishop to Pearson. That kind of increase, would hasten the requirement for the sixth runway. And somehow I don't imagine all those advocating for immediate closure of the airport, to be sympathetic to arguments against expanding Pearson.

I've argued that for reasons of competition and economic interest that airport can't be closed till we get HSR. That makes it both politically more feasible and lessens the economic impact of reduced competition.

If my interpretation was correct, the GTAA master plan says that a sixth runway won't be needed for a long time. Much larger airports operate on less runways. That being said, airports are extremely noisy, and annoying to live under.

HFR would take out much demand; air travel is a hassle.

Most cities around the world have one main airport, and a smattering of small airports in far-flung suburbs. They seem to do quite fine; if Pearson raised fees considerably, I can see some airlines moving to Hamilton. Those are not on valuable land, that can be used for large amounts of (hopefully affordable) housing.

 

[nfitz]

This image show's Toronto's downtown care as an area of parkland need. (orange).

The Islands themselves are not; but they are the easiest source to fulfill the downtown need.

...

This image below ranks relative need by colour, red being the areas most short of parkland, orange being somewhat less bad:

Fascinating figures, but looking at where the need is, it's neither on the islands, or even downtown near the islands. They could make the entire park area parkland, but because it's already surrounded by parkland, both on the islands, and along the shoreline - none of the orange disappears. Not one square metre.

So shouldn't be a priority!

 

[Northern Light]

Fascinating figures, but looking at where the need is, it's neither on the islands, or even downtown near the islands. They could make the entire park area parkland, but because it's already surrounded by parkland, both on the islands, and along the shoreline - none of the orange disappears. Not one square metre.

So shouldn't be a priority!

I would be content enough w/that argument; so long as we have an alternate solution to meet the need.

I would add, that on a hot summer's day, a number of those waterfront parks are back-filling the demand for residents further north and are very fully utilized.

Even the Islands can be insanely busy on a nice summer weekend.

The other issue, of note, of course, is that downtown parks are shared with tourists, not typically a factor in more suburban locations.