WislaHD
Superstar
Preach my Midtown brother, preach!
|
|
|
Preach my Midtown brother, preach!
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Here are some ideas from Amsterdam:
http://www.architonic.com/aisht/a8erna-nl-architects/5100103
It's not all doom and gloom as many are making it out to be. There's still a lot of potential to turn this into a great space.
Attachments
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
I dunno dude. Politicians are pretty untrustworthy as it is. I'm sure they want us plebians to think they're supporting one thing, with all the orchestrated theatrics and one-liners. But behind closed doors I believe there's a lot more going on. Not to mention that this is still pretty close to call.
As well, think about this: The Fords are huuuuge media whores. Any chance to get in the media to rally their troops - particularly if it concerns pro-car anti-downtown sentiment - they'd do it. A highway downtown is a perfect opportunity. But surprisingly the gruesome twosome are nowhere to be found. Perhaps that means they know how the debate will end, and that it's a lost cause.
It's entirely possible.
junior43
Active Member
fords will go the I told you so route. When would demolition begin? I get the impression they
Use rob's recovery as the excuse for not voting and then during a 2018 election when there's demolition detours. Use that as an example of latte sippers and a reason to build more subways to nowhere.
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,451
- Reaction score
- 1,514
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
Attachments
denfromoakvillemilton
Senior Member
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2008
- Messages
- 7,451
- Reaction score
- 1,514
- Location
- Downtown Toronto, Ontario
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Haha, at least that will favor the removal option.
I'm glad to know that I'm not the only one hoping that something horrible happens to this structure (without hurting anyone, of course).
Electrify
Senior Member
So, just to humor me and my own POV, how would you interpret the following line of reasoning:
The removal of the Gardiner and subsequent development of the freed up lands would result in new communities, neighbourhoods and populations located in closer proximity to the downtown core who will not only come with great health and environmental benefits, it will contribute economically through private spending and investment, increased tax revenues and cultural production, but also represents a 'shift' away from suburban and car-oriented sprawl. Without these new developments, these future populations may otherwise locate themselves in suburban regions, costing our society due to sprawl and health/environmental related consequences, choosing to promote inefficient automobile-centric way of life and contributing further to road congestion across the city.
The problem with Regent Park and Robert Moses' highway building is that they both represented an old school of urban planning that presented an idealized version of what urban society ought to be. New Urbanists make the same mistake very often by pointing at beautiful European cities and built forms and forcing 'planned' replicas or imitations be built here with no regard as to why those European cities and built form came to be in the first place. They do not have any regard for the needs of the population, only the aesthetics of the planned development, and that is where they, like the planners of Regent Park, will fail. The development on the waterfront on the other hand represents a different line of thought - allowing the market to decide the purposes and needs of the population and thus what gets built. This is why we have Southcore's condo towers with large podiums and big box stores at ground level rather than the mom&pop shops, the daily needs of the population demands the former. Similarly, on the macro level the market is shifting as society re-prioritizes their wants and needs, and they want to locate closer to downtown, they want to live in walkable communities, they want to walk/bike/take transit to work, they want to free themselves from the burdens of car ownership and commuting by car. The old model of suburban living with a lawn of grass and white picket fence is shifting away and the condo boom downtown is the market deciding what is to replace it.
You are very right to bring up the failures of the old school of urban planning espoused by Robert Moses and proponents of community housing projects everywhere, they are very relevant lessons today that to my disappointment I see many New Urbanists failing to grasp. I am steadfast in my belief that by not tearing down the Gardiner we are going against the economic needs and trends of our society. Retaining the Gardiner is in other words, imposing an unnecessary roadblock to the organic growth and transition of the market with an idealized version of what ought to be without regard to the changing needs of society. Just like Regent Park and other misguided planned projects, retaining the Gardiner will be an ultimately unsuccessful exercise and a missed opportunity.
(Hehe, I just realized I made retaining the Gardiner sound like a socialist exercise, how do you like that pro-Gardiner conservatives?
P.S. You cited that other highway removal projects were just spurs and that those cities have other highways to compensate. I refer you to the Cheonggyecheon in Seoul, it was a big piece of infrastructure like the Gardiner, and its urban renewal has been an outstanding success. After Seoul removed the highway, downtown businesses reported increased value and efficiency and the city reported lower levels of congestion in surrounding roads and Seoul's downtown does not have other nearby highways.
The thing is that new development can still take place under the hybrid option. I even suggested adding new north-south side streets for said development to face to maximize development potential. Urban planning is about finding compromises between stakeholders to create a functioning city. If anything, it is the antithesis to the free market. Planning must curb the free market's desire to develop all profitable land to ensure said development is produced responsibly, especially since developers have limited concerns about the externalizations of their projects. This can range from subdivisions constructed over environmentally sensitive lands to condos requiring demolition of major transport infrastructure.
Another point which I wished I discussed in more detail is the psychological effects of the removal of this infrastructure. Humans are illogical creatures. While the boulevard may not be all that much slower than the current highway, people will see this gap in the highway network and choose to avoid it, likely taking the congested 401. For example, there are bus routes which are faster than some slower stretches of our subways, yet people still perceive them to be inferior to subways and would likely avoid travelling on these routes.
DarnDirtyApe
Active Member
WAIT WAIT WAIT! Do these pictures mean that latte-sipping, bicycle riding paradise Amsterdam has an elevated highway running through a vibrant neighbourhood? Please explain!
WislaHD
Superstar
We can't even get our normal parks right. What makes anyone think we can do anything on the level of the Dutch?
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Throw enough money at it and you can make anything tolerable (not great, by a long shot - if it was great, it'd be used for something more than playgrounds and the like) space - the great space underneath the Gardiner isn't along this stretch - it is the at the western end. Also keep in mind - there is no Lakeshore running underneath in these analogues in Amsterdam either, so unless someone has proposed removing the roadway, these examples are not comparable to the situation in Toronto.
AoD
Last edited:
DarnDirtyApe
Active Member
It will be for the area east of Cherry... that's the extra acreage that would be opened up under the remove option.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
Except that Lakeshore will be removed from the underside under the keep option. So yes, they are comparable to the situation here.
WislaHD
Superstar
And who will access this underside park?
Tuscani01
Senior Member
We can't get our boulevards right either. Does that mean we should scrap the remove option?
Come on now. Quit with the fear mongering. It will be what we make of it. If we were to put as much attention into it as we have for Queens Quay, it can become a great space. The only thing that will hold it back from being something great is ourselves and our tendency to simply put up a white flag and admit to defeat.