picard102
Senior Member
Making it easy for tourists is not a selling point IMO. I don't want large numbers of people wandering over and ruining a somewhat peaceful space. Let alone the gawkers coming to the clothing optional beach.
I do not always agree with you but in this case you are absolutely correct: bringing tourists/visitors to the island via a bridge to Ward's Island is not sensible and a link via the airport would be FAR better. Exactly how to achieve this (a sunken walkway, a tunnel or ??) is an open question but as noted by Shawn Micallef in the Star piece noted above, the time to discuss this is if/when the Tri-Partite Agreement is reopened. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/con...cle_e8f68bde-6154-11ef-9318-8b5420c7a2e1.htmlResponding to a couple of comments about my piece: The key points here are accsss and proximity.
Access to the Island Park via the airport site is vastly more convenient and pleasant than the Ward’s Island alternative.
The western gap, where the airport ferry lands, is a mile from the CN Tower, tourism hub of the city, and less than a mile from the new King-Bathurst subway station. Union is 2.1km. It is totally plausible for people to walk there in large numbers. The Bathurst streetcar already exists.
The eastern gap is roughly 4.5 km from the centre. If a bridge was built there, it would land on Unwin Avenue, an industrial district. Even when the waterfront East LRT is eventually finished, it would be far less convenient, pleasant, and intuitive to reach the islands via this route.
View attachment 591191
View attachment 591193
View attachment 591194