C
cdl42
Guest
DRL? You mean we're not going to get a Portlands - Queen's Quay and Bay - Island Airport subway.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
S
SD2
Guest
Ah, but was this a worthy project?
The purpose of the fair, other than "Hey, lets have a worlds fair!" was never really articulated. It may be that whichever government gets the blame should really get the credit for not agreeing to sink money into another Knoxville or New Orleans, or at best one of the non-event Worlds Fairs that have been held since then.
Well, with a project of this scale one could always argue against it. The fact remains there were great potential benefits - transit expansion, expidited waterfront development, tourism, etc.
The city wasn't even allowed the chance to bid (for an event that they were pretty much a slam dunk to get, for that matter), all because of government squabbling and incompetence. You ask them to think big just once and all they can do is bicker. It's all very sad.
The Liberals have done some good things for cities, but this really puts a dent in their reputation. I wouldn't be surprised to see Tory and the Conservatives pull out a win next election.
T
thenay
Guest
I'm thru with the Liberals (which I usually vote) and Conservatives (which I never liked anyways), I'm voting NDP next time (even though they most likely won't win, but its the principal that matters to me)
What a shame our governments couldn't work out for the bid to go thru.
What a shame our governments couldn't work out for the bid to go thru.
S
spmarshall
Guest
Jim Coyle took some shots at Royson and Hume today.
I agree with most of what he says, but at least we would have got some money for the waterfront and transit out of this bid - that is why I am disapointed (not to mention some momentum and excitement) In another column, Ian Urquhart blames it on the fighting between the province and the federal government.
From the Star:
World's fair a vestige of the past
Nov. 4, 2006. 01:00 AM
JIM COYLE
Contrary to what some of my hyperventilating colleagues would have you believe, the decision this week not to proceed with Toronto's bid to host Expo 2015 had little to do with the size of the mayor's manhood, nor was it a declaration of our official status as municipal wimp or dysfunctional nation.
There were lots of factors for the bid sputtering out before Thursday's deadline, all of them far less personal, far less traumatizing, and having more to do with the time than the town.
For starters, Toronto's proposed bid was always founded on troubling motives.
As usual, it flowed in large measure, as all such recent local mega-endeavours have, from our perennial inferiority complex, the notion that we are not worthy unless the world can be enticed to beat a path to our door and tell us so.
It was also founded in a childish faith in the quick fix. Invariably, hosting an Expo or an Olympics is trotted out as a solution to many of our longest-standing problems. Land this and everything — most particularly the paralysis on waterfront redevelopment — would be fine.
But in this, proponents of the bid usually sounded like nothing so much as the man and wife in a rocky marriage who believed having a baby would be the solution to their woes. As big a deal as it was, it was not something done for its own sake, but rather as the desperate means to an end.
From the beginning, there was little on-the-ground enthusiasm for the Expo bid. It was a top-down, elite-driven affair. True, polls would occasionally suggest the public backed it. But these were usually based on the question: "Do you support or oppose Toronto's bid for the world's fair?"
This was rather like asking people if they liked fun and ice cream. A tweaking of the question to ask whether folks would foot the bill would likely — as in a Simpsons episode in which the townsfolk are alternately and rabidly in favour of both the highest-quality education and rock-bottom taxes — have produced different results.
Which brings us to the core reason — beyond even economics — for the tepid public engagement throughout the bid development process.
World's fairs are icons not of this century but of the last.
They were products of the new mobility provided by the advent of first automobiles, then airplanes. Just getting to them was an adventure in itself and an accomplishment to knock the socks off the neighbours back home.
Furthermore, world's fairs flourished at a time when any part of the world much beyond one's own county line was different and exotic. Other continents might as well have been other planets. It was rather as Bill Bryson describes it in his new memoir about growing up in 1950s Iowa: "Every place was different then."
Nowadays, globalization having done its homogenizing work, the commercial landscape of any major metropolis is a good deal like that of any other anywhere in the world. Much of the mystery is gone.
Most of all, world's fairs were the showcase of the 20th century's technological boom. People still gobsmacked by department-store escalators and television sets and refrigerator-freezers were treated to an imminent utopia of superhighways, space travel and all the wonders certain to make the living easy.
In their day, and in ways impossible to duplicate, the spectacle and its promise were quite literally awesome.
It's worth noting, moreover, that the most famous of such events coincided with significant social or demographic developments. The 1939 World's Fair in New York came as a public exhausted by a decade-long depression was desperate for a party and reason to be optimistic. The 1967 Expo in Montreal stands as the coming-of-age party for the baby-boom generation.
In his book on the 1939 World's Fair in New York, David Gelernter noted that world's fairs flourished during a time of faith in authority. The fair was, by definition, authoritative. It spoke of what was possible and what was coming. "And authority, once upon a time, meant a very great deal indeed."
None of those generators — the sense of adventure, the sense of novelty, the sense of a bright and promising future, the sense of a generation's pent-up need for a party or for acknowledgment, the trust in a benevolent authority — seemed to be firing at present sufficient to get the Toronto bid off the ground.
From the beginning, there had to be more to it — something defining, something inspiring — than an urban renewal project. By their very nature, world's fairs are founded on optimism and confidence — and the most ardent proponents of this bid sounded to be lobbying from desperation and neediness.
As to the criticism of David Miller, it does seem to miss the mark. It was the previous mayor who dreamed of panaceas and would have basked in the business of hosting the world. Miller is a mayor of more substantive core and practical outlook.
He knows incrementalism is not as sexy as extravaganza.
But that most of the time it's how the world works.
Jim Coyle usually appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
I agree with most of what he says, but at least we would have got some money for the waterfront and transit out of this bid - that is why I am disapointed (not to mention some momentum and excitement) In another column, Ian Urquhart blames it on the fighting between the province and the federal government.
From the Star:
World's fair a vestige of the past
Nov. 4, 2006. 01:00 AM
JIM COYLE
Contrary to what some of my hyperventilating colleagues would have you believe, the decision this week not to proceed with Toronto's bid to host Expo 2015 had little to do with the size of the mayor's manhood, nor was it a declaration of our official status as municipal wimp or dysfunctional nation.
There were lots of factors for the bid sputtering out before Thursday's deadline, all of them far less personal, far less traumatizing, and having more to do with the time than the town.
For starters, Toronto's proposed bid was always founded on troubling motives.
As usual, it flowed in large measure, as all such recent local mega-endeavours have, from our perennial inferiority complex, the notion that we are not worthy unless the world can be enticed to beat a path to our door and tell us so.
It was also founded in a childish faith in the quick fix. Invariably, hosting an Expo or an Olympics is trotted out as a solution to many of our longest-standing problems. Land this and everything — most particularly the paralysis on waterfront redevelopment — would be fine.
But in this, proponents of the bid usually sounded like nothing so much as the man and wife in a rocky marriage who believed having a baby would be the solution to their woes. As big a deal as it was, it was not something done for its own sake, but rather as the desperate means to an end.
From the beginning, there was little on-the-ground enthusiasm for the Expo bid. It was a top-down, elite-driven affair. True, polls would occasionally suggest the public backed it. But these were usually based on the question: "Do you support or oppose Toronto's bid for the world's fair?"
This was rather like asking people if they liked fun and ice cream. A tweaking of the question to ask whether folks would foot the bill would likely — as in a Simpsons episode in which the townsfolk are alternately and rabidly in favour of both the highest-quality education and rock-bottom taxes — have produced different results.
Which brings us to the core reason — beyond even economics — for the tepid public engagement throughout the bid development process.
World's fairs are icons not of this century but of the last.
They were products of the new mobility provided by the advent of first automobiles, then airplanes. Just getting to them was an adventure in itself and an accomplishment to knock the socks off the neighbours back home.
Furthermore, world's fairs flourished at a time when any part of the world much beyond one's own county line was different and exotic. Other continents might as well have been other planets. It was rather as Bill Bryson describes it in his new memoir about growing up in 1950s Iowa: "Every place was different then."
Nowadays, globalization having done its homogenizing work, the commercial landscape of any major metropolis is a good deal like that of any other anywhere in the world. Much of the mystery is gone.
Most of all, world's fairs were the showcase of the 20th century's technological boom. People still gobsmacked by department-store escalators and television sets and refrigerator-freezers were treated to an imminent utopia of superhighways, space travel and all the wonders certain to make the living easy.
In their day, and in ways impossible to duplicate, the spectacle and its promise were quite literally awesome.
It's worth noting, moreover, that the most famous of such events coincided with significant social or demographic developments. The 1939 World's Fair in New York came as a public exhausted by a decade-long depression was desperate for a party and reason to be optimistic. The 1967 Expo in Montreal stands as the coming-of-age party for the baby-boom generation.
In his book on the 1939 World's Fair in New York, David Gelernter noted that world's fairs flourished during a time of faith in authority. The fair was, by definition, authoritative. It spoke of what was possible and what was coming. "And authority, once upon a time, meant a very great deal indeed."
None of those generators — the sense of adventure, the sense of novelty, the sense of a bright and promising future, the sense of a generation's pent-up need for a party or for acknowledgment, the trust in a benevolent authority — seemed to be firing at present sufficient to get the Toronto bid off the ground.
From the beginning, there had to be more to it — something defining, something inspiring — than an urban renewal project. By their very nature, world's fairs are founded on optimism and confidence — and the most ardent proponents of this bid sounded to be lobbying from desperation and neediness.
As to the criticism of David Miller, it does seem to miss the mark. It was the previous mayor who dreamed of panaceas and would have basked in the business of hosting the world. Miller is a mayor of more substantive core and practical outlook.
He knows incrementalism is not as sexy as extravaganza.
But that most of the time it's how the world works.
Jim Coyle usually appears Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday.
C
cdl42
Guest
proponents of the bid usually sounded like nothing so much as the man and wife in a rocky marriage who believed having a baby would be the solution to their woes. As big a deal as it was, it was not something done for its own sake, but rather as the desperate means to an end.
Worth repeating.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"DRL? You mean we're not going to get a Portlands - Queen's Quay and Bay - Island Airport subway."
But I always thought that proposal was a joke...
A DRL would take people to the front door of the Expo site, just not circulate them within it.
But I always thought that proposal was a joke...
A DRL would take people to the front door of the Expo site, just not circulate them within it.
C
cdl42
Guest
Sadly it was no joke... I recall arguing with FM on this forum over the merits of the proposal. Completely underwater... yeesh.
Sadly, I highly doubt that we even would have seen a DRL... probably a new streetcar line, a GO train running back and forth between Union and Cherry St, and an absolute assload of shuttle buses (with plans for closing Broadview to private traffic to allow the quick movement of streetcars and shuttle buses scuttled by the complaints of area residents).
You know... Toronto-style.
Sadly, I highly doubt that we even would have seen a DRL... probably a new streetcar line, a GO train running back and forth between Union and Cherry St, and an absolute assload of shuttle buses (with plans for closing Broadview to private traffic to allow the quick movement of streetcars and shuttle buses scuttled by the complaints of area residents).
You know... Toronto-style.
T
tudararms
Guest
"How can you say they 'came through' and then admit it was nothing more than a political move?"
I don't see these things as mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, Federal approval and $600 million were there for the taking, regardless of the motivation and regardless of the timeline. Dalton and David clearly had no interest.
"I would like to see the Federal government stay completely out of municipal affairs (expo, olympics, and especially transportation)."
Unfortunately Federal approval was a requirement of the bidding process.
"BS like this Expo thing makes me much more reluctant to do so. It's just so incredibly amateur, and symbolic of problems in both Canadian society and politics that are much, much deeper than a World's Fair (or, for that matter, an underwater transit tunnel). Canada eats its young like no country I have ever seen."
Agree allaboot. Come back home, we need more like you here!!
I don't see these things as mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, Federal approval and $600 million were there for the taking, regardless of the motivation and regardless of the timeline. Dalton and David clearly had no interest.
"I would like to see the Federal government stay completely out of municipal affairs (expo, olympics, and especially transportation)."
Unfortunately Federal approval was a requirement of the bidding process.
"BS like this Expo thing makes me much more reluctant to do so. It's just so incredibly amateur, and symbolic of problems in both Canadian society and politics that are much, much deeper than a World's Fair (or, for that matter, an underwater transit tunnel). Canada eats its young like no country I have ever seen."
Agree allaboot. Come back home, we need more like you here!!
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"Sadly, I highly doubt that we even would have seen a DRL..."
It'd solve half the city's transit problems in one step, but, no, we're never gonna get a DRL. Any other city in the world with a population of more than a few million would build it.
It'd solve half the city's transit problems in one step, but, no, we're never gonna get a DRL. Any other city in the world with a population of more than a few million would build it.
C
cdl42
Guest
Well, that's the thing, innit? It's not the city's decision, it's the province's.
"It's just so incredibly amateur, and symbolic of problems in both Canadian society and politics that are much, much deeper than a World's Fair (or, for that matter, an underwater transit tunnel). Canada eats its young like no country I have ever seen."
So true. This very issue has really been bugging me as of late. When did it become acceptable for politics to feed people's pre-concieved biases rather than make decisions based upon need and wise investment. I see another letter to the editor in the Star today from a rural resident complaining how he doesn't want his tax money spent in Toronto.
"It's just so incredibly amateur, and symbolic of problems in both Canadian society and politics that are much, much deeper than a World's Fair (or, for that matter, an underwater transit tunnel). Canada eats its young like no country I have ever seen."
So true. This very issue has really been bugging me as of late. When did it become acceptable for politics to feed people's pre-concieved biases rather than make decisions based upon need and wise investment. I see another letter to the editor in the Star today from a rural resident complaining how he doesn't want his tax money spent in Toronto.
S
SD2
Guest
I don't see these things as mutually exclusive. At the end of the day, Federal approval and $600 million were there for the taking, regardless of the motivation and regardless of the timeline. Dalton and David clearly had no interest.
But given the timing of the committment, it seems like the only goal of the gesture was to ensure they were put in a favourable light. The funding was only for the Expo, something they knew Toronto really had no chance of getting at that point.
The province is to blame as well, but it's extremely difficult to see the Conservative's last minute (or beyond last minute) offer as anything more than political manouvering.
B
borgos
Guest
I think that part of the problem is that Torontonians do not vote strategically in provincial or federal elections allowing the grits and tories to take us for granted. Here's an idea: what if a non-partisan coalition of Torontonians were to send a questionnaire to each Toronto candidate in the next federal and provincial election and publish the results on-line? Here are a couple of ideas about what they could be asked:
1. Are you in favour of permanently allocating one cent of the GST (or PST) raised in Toronto to the City?
2. Will you vote to reduce the Business education tax in Toronto to the 905 level?
3. Will you vote in favour of resuming provincial responsibility for social services?
1. Are you in favour of permanently allocating one cent of the GST (or PST) raised in Toronto to the City?
2. Will you vote to reduce the Business education tax in Toronto to the 905 level?
3. Will you vote in favour of resuming provincial responsibility for social services?
U
unimaginative2
Guest
Well, that's the thing, innit? It's not the city's decision, it's the province's.
Not really. The province build's the city's proposals. In the Rapid Transit Expansion study, the York U line was a priority and the VCC extension was examined. No new downtown line was even discussed. That was the TTC's own study, with no interference from the province or anyone else. Council and local representatives from the York area actively support the York U subway and have run lobbying campaigns for years. No mention of a downtown subway passes councillors' or TTC planners' lips.
S
scarberiankhatru
Guest
"Well, that's the thing, innit? It's not the city's decision, it's the province's."
Maybe the province should have bought the subdivision between Vaughan Mills and Wonderland, razed the houses, and hosted Expo there so the Spadina line could be run up to Major Mack. "The Expo Above Toronto"
Maybe the province should have bought the subdivision between Vaughan Mills and Wonderland, razed the houses, and hosted Expo there so the Spadina line could be run up to Major Mack. "The Expo Above Toronto"
C
cdl42
Guest
The province build's the city's proposals. In the Rapid Transit Expansion study, the York U line was a priority and the VCC extension was examined. No new downtown line was even discussed. Council and local representatives from the York area actively support the York U subway and have run lobbying campaigns for years. No mention of a downtown subway passes councillors' or TTC planners' lips.
I really don't agree with you that there is a lack of desire for new subways in this city, downtown or otherwise. We hear proposals and lobbying on a fairly continious basis and it never makes any major difference... we all know that the only reason the VCC line is moving like it has is thanks to Mr. Sobrara.
Your argument could be extended to any number of issues... housing, waterfront development, action on the Gardiner, stable transit funding, etc... you seem to think all are lacking apparently because we're not wishing for it hard enough. That's something I just don't buy, it's a systemic issue.
As for the RTES, the stated intent of the study was the apparent need to serve suburban areas that don't already have service, apparently because central areas are already "well served"... a very dubious claim in itself.