DirectionNorth
Active Member
Same could be said for you.
Toronto Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup
sixrings
Senior Member
You have spent the last couple pages of this thread suggesting that the only people against such a proposal are white elitist NIMBYS.
The point of the post was to let you know there are others who are against it for various reasons other than their own backyards.
afransen
Senior Member
I'm not a NIMBY, I live closer to Pearson than BB.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Never said the opposition was exclusively NIMBYs. Just a preponderance of it. It's exceptionally rare for somebody in North York or Scarborough to complain about YTZ. But they get a vote too....
kEiThZ
Superstar
Hardly. My views are in line with survey after survey that shows the majority of the city's residents aren't opposed to the airport.
That you (and a few others) think my view is an imposition (rather than the norm), shows how out of touch this forum can be with a lot of regular citizens.
Why don't airport opponents push for a referendum if they are so convinced that most residents are on their side? Put it on the ballot in the next municipal election.
Last edited:
DirectionNorth
Active Member
You also have a preference, while dismissing everybody else's. I am simply saying that it sounds a little hypocritical.
I never thought your view is an imposition. When you responded "We don't base policy off your opinion" (paraphrasing), I simply meant that your opinion is not automatically more valid than another. There are both opponents and proponents of the airport, neither is automatically "more valid" in planning policy, which is what you seem to be implying. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I don't agree with the description of the potential BB closure as an attempt of whiter folks to take advantage of darker folks. First of all, it's not the locals who bring up the idea of closing BB. At least, I never heard / read of the locals complaining of the noise etc. The idea of closure is floated by social activists who want to repurpose the land, and it isn't evident that such an idea has any appeal for the public, including the local residents.
Furthermore, it is not evident who is whiter or darker here, or richer / poorer. Downtown hosts a large cohort of young professionals, who have modern education and come from all ethnic backgrounds. Their common features are a good income that allows them to buy a dowtown condo, and not needing a large space because they are young and have no families yet. Another cohort is homeless / very poor by definition, who congregate in downtown because it is easier to make some kind of living there; not sure they care about BB either way, but if we want to count the demographics, then here they are.
And the Pearson flight paths include residential areas with a variety of groups, too. Sure, lots of working immigrant families, and families of first-generation Canadian-borns; they have enough income to rent or buy in the suburbs, but not in downtown. Those groups are ethnically diverse. But, also many established SFH neighborhoods where the houses were purchased 20, 30, 40 years ago, and didn't change hands since; they are mostly white because the country's makeup was different back then.
The only demographic distinction that can be made here is younger / older. Downtown is younger, suburbs are older, due to the reason already mentioned. Yonger people without families need less space.
All that said, I am in favor of preserving the airport, but for reasons other than demographics / backgrounds of the residents.
The airport provides an extra transportation option, and makes downtown more interesting and more appealing overall. The BB's location is unique and suited for its purpose, you won't find another suitable spot within 10 km of CN Tower, maybe more. While the alternative land uses can be realized in other places, not very far from there.
Furthermore, it is not evident who is whiter or darker here, or richer / poorer. Downtown hosts a large cohort of young professionals, who have modern education and come from all ethnic backgrounds. Their common features are a good income that allows them to buy a dowtown condo, and not needing a large space because they are young and have no families yet. Another cohort is homeless / very poor by definition, who congregate in downtown because it is easier to make some kind of living there; not sure they care about BB either way, but if we want to count the demographics, then here they are.
And the Pearson flight paths include residential areas with a variety of groups, too. Sure, lots of working immigrant families, and families of first-generation Canadian-borns; they have enough income to rent or buy in the suburbs, but not in downtown. Those groups are ethnically diverse. But, also many established SFH neighborhoods where the houses were purchased 20, 30, 40 years ago, and didn't change hands since; they are mostly white because the country's makeup was different back then.
The only demographic distinction that can be made here is younger / older. Downtown is younger, suburbs are older, due to the reason already mentioned. Yonger people without families need less space.
All that said, I am in favor of preserving the airport, but for reasons other than demographics / backgrounds of the residents.
The airport provides an extra transportation option, and makes downtown more interesting and more appealing overall. The BB's location is unique and suited for its purpose, you won't find another suitable spot within 10 km of CN Tower, maybe more. While the alternative land uses can be realized in other places, not very far from there.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Btw, I've lived on Kipling near Eglinton couple of decades ago. Have seen many planes descending on their approach to Pearson; they look very large and cool at low altitude, but I don't remember them being particularly noisy. Maybe that's different in Mississauga, where the planes are accending and the engines are going full power.
And the Q400's at Billy Bishop didn't sound very noisy, either. Altough I have only been there 2 times for a flight, and another couple of times on the "mainland" watching the airport.
And the Q400's at Billy Bishop didn't sound very noisy, either. Altough I have only been there 2 times for a flight, and another couple of times on the "mainland" watching the airport.
sixrings
Senior Member
I really thought the airport express link was supposed to help a lot of the issues some people are bringing up. So it’s not a good enough air port moving and it doesn’t have enough stops and is to expensive to help commuters. UPX is a fail I guess.
kEiThZ
Superstar
UPE was meant to replace airport shuttle buses and airport limos. Not Billy Bishop.
HSR is realistically the only infrastructure that can really replace Billy Bishop. And hopefully progressive upgrading of HFR can get us there by 2040.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Indeed it isn't. But this forum has a real lack of perspective from regular folks. I don't think I'm going out on a limb here when I say that I'm closer to the average opinion on the issue than the folks who say, "Shut it down and cover it with turf."
It's not so much that I'm opposed to closing the airport. I just don't think it will happen without any actual alternative. "Take the UPX to Pearson," really isn't that alternative.
syn
Senior Member
I love the Islands. I understand wanting it removed - overall I'd love more park space there. The removal of airplanes would be beneficial, overall.
As a user, it's a great convenience. I can appreciate why people want it to remain.
Overall I'm happy to operational, but I don't agree with expansion or allowing larger jet planes.
As a user, it's a great convenience. I can appreciate why people want it to remain.
Overall I'm happy to operational, but I don't agree with expansion or allowing larger jet planes.
afransen
Senior Member
All the reasons in favour of keeping it also support expanding it. It would only make it more useful if larger aircraft could use it and it could handle more flights per day. And if it apparently doesn't bother anyone and there's no benefit to repurposing the space, logically we should extend the runways so jets can use it and serve more farflung destinations, enhancing its utility.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Not sure larger aircrafts would be possible in BB. The runways stretch coast to coast. Larger aircrafts usually need longer runways, so wouldn't it become a safety issue?
Plus, larger aircrafts may be more noisy.
Plus, larger aircrafts may be more noisy.
afransen
Senior Member
It has been asserted that noise isn't a problem, and we can extend the runways with fill.