Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[adma]

My suggestion: build a massive roundabout at the intersection, and put up a landmark monument in the middle of it.

Well, goes well with Robert Moses coming back into fashion

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The renderings didn't communicate the potential of the project well enough - if one is interested in what this project can be, they should check out the East Bayfront Master Plan.

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

TKTKTK:
That is a false analogy of SJT = Gardiner removal. Beyond that, why not use some positive comparison of expressway removal from elsewhere?

The analogy isn't really that far off. It just seems a stretch because we're applying it to a raised highway that you can't find any worth in.

Or it might not; or that maybe the area won't be some "serious something again" without the Gardiner going. So which option should be plan for? Removal of an eyesore, or hope that eyesore won't reduce the desirability of an area to moot the point of it being something that would necessitate something like the Gardiner? (which itself is also a questionable argument, considering there are plenty of successful neighbourhoods that do not have direct expressway access)

It's not an eyesore. It's actually really quite beautiful in spots - and those spots hint at what could be done (at the minimum) to beautify the beast.

The Gardiner isn't an insurmountable challenge. It can be retained and tamed, but it's going to require a little creative thinking. The Gardiner is a giant covered area that is capable of taking traffic away from ground level, and taking it up out of the way. Why not exploit that rather than destroying it, and bringing all those cars down to the surface? We've hashed out the possibilities in countless threads — walkways, winter gardens, platforms, stores, whatever - so there's no point in going over it all again.

I think a lot of the Gardiner hate comes from the lack of effort applied to keeping it looking good rather than just structurally sound, plus the popularity of anti-car fashists (I think you guys actually MWB most of our transportation infrastructure that deals with cars.)

Queen's Quay is a rather poor example of what should be done partially because of the negative effects of the Gardiner; as to St. Lawrence - don't forget the area benefited immensely from the direct connections it have with functional neighbourhoods to the North and West - such is NOT the case with EBF.

Even after removing, or boulevardizing, the Gardiner - you're still not going to have any neighbourhood connections because the rail barrier will remain. The Gardiner is porous, but the rail berm is very much solid - except for the few holes we've punched through.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Elevating vehicular traffic isn't taking it "out of the way" though - unless you're David Copperfield. It's still in the way, more so because it is raised and made more visible.

The world hasn't ended because part of it was taken down several years ago, and I think that life as we know it will more or less continue continue as before once we've taken down another stretch of this hideous thing.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

TKTKTK:

The analogy isn't really that far off. It just seems a stretch because we're applying it to a raised highway that you can't find any worth in.

SJT is a private blockbusting development project; removal of the Gardiner is a publically sanctioned change to publically-owned infrastructure. Quite far off regardless of how much I felt about the highway is worth.

It's not an eyesore. It's actually really quite beautiful in spots - and those spots hint at what could be done (at the minimum) to beautify the beast.

Yes, it can indeed be beautiful in spots - like the section around Fort York (as contextually inappropriate as it is). Not the section in question from Jarvis to DVP (with the exception of perhaps the very eastern leg, where there is absolutely NOTHING on either side).

The Gardiner isn't an insurmountable challenge. It can be retained and tamed, but it's going to require a little creative thinking. The Gardiner is a giant covered area that is capable of taking traffic away from ground level, and taking it up out of the way. Why not exploit that rather than destroying it, and bringing all those cars down to the surface? We've hashed out the possibilities in countless threads — walkways, winter gardens, platforms, stores, whatever - so there's no point in going over it all again.

I don't believe the report is available online anymore, but I have in front of me a printed copy of a proposal by aA/pA and Brook Milroy Inc which looked at the various possibilities for "creative thinking" as you've mentioned. You know what the result feels like? Making a purse of out of sow's ears - particularly for the section east of York St. Try as one may, but there are certainly qualities of a street that can't be replicated by having a megatonne of construction materials hanging 2 stories above you. It's not for the lack of imagination - it's physics.

I think a lot of the Gardiner hate comes from the lack of effort applied to keeping it looking good rather than just structurally sound, plus the popularity of anti-car fashists (I think you guys actually MWB most of our transportation infrastructure that deals with cars.).

There are certain sections of the Gardiner that is just NOT amenable to be made to look good, just because of the nature of what it is. Examples of relatively handsome expressway undersides elsewhere are oftentimes 1) much narrower than the Gardiner and/or 2) much higher up from street-level than the Gardiner. The latter is an especially important factor - that's one reason why the Fort York section is delightful - and the rest of it so oppressive - because it's raised so high up that the width and weight is lessened. In fact, Bruce Mau I believe have suggested that the Gardiner be lifted further up and "lightened", which would have worked indeed, IMO, but it certainly won't be a cost effective option vis-a-vis razing the structure. Even then, you will still have to deal with the issue of on and off ramps, which are even more problematic.

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

Elevating vehicular traffic isn't taking it "out of the way" though - unless you're David Copperfield. It's still in the way, more so because it is raised and made more visible.

Out of sight, out of mind! The structure's visible, but that can be exploited.

The world hasn't ended because part of it was taken down several years ago, and I think that life as we know it will more or less continue continue as before once we've taken down another stretch of this hideous thing.

But I think that old section should have come down. It really didn't connect anything at all. This part logically completes a connection between the DVP and the Gardiner and points further west.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Even after removing, or boulevardizing, the Gardiner - you're still not going to have any neighbourhood connections because the rail barrier will remain. The Gardiner is porous, but the rail berm is very much solid - except for the few holes we've punched through.

Except that you can potentially urbanize the northern edge of the Boulevard (as suggested in the EBF Masterplan). Try doing that with the Gardiner in place?

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

TKTKTK:
SJT is a private blockbusting development project; removal of the Gardiner is a publically sanctioned change to publically-owned infrastructure. Quite far off regardless of how I felt about how much the highway is worth.

The connection was blight.

I don't believe the report is available online anymore, but I have in front of me a printed copy of a proposal by aA/pA and Brook Milroy Inc which looked at the various possibilities for "creative thinking" as you've mentioned. You know what the result feels like? Making a purse of out of sow's ears - particularly for the section east of York St. Try as one may, but there are certainly qualities of a street that can't be replicated by having a megatonne of construction materials hanging 2 stories above you. It's not for the lack of imagination - it's physics.

Ok, 2 firms surely exhausted all potential ideas. I wonder what we'd come up with if the effort to tear down the Gardiner had been equally applied to exploiting it.

There are certain sections of the Gardiner that is just NOT amenable to be made to look good, just because of the nature of what it is. Examples of relatively handsome expressway undersides elsewhere are oftentimes 1) much narrower than the Gardiner and/or 2) much higher up from street-level than the Gardiner. The latter is an especially important factor - that's one reason why the Fort York section is delightful - and the rest of it so oppressive - because it's raised so high up that the width and weight is lessened. In addition to that - it's not just the expressway proper that is problematic - but even more so the on and off ramps.

The on/off ramps for the west-bound lanes aren't a problem in this area as they're tucked alongside the giant rail berm that acts as the real barrier to movement towards the waterfront. The lone east-bound ramp past Jarvis doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

The lowest section of the Gardiner, the area running between Yonge and Bay is awesome. That's where the supports turn into these angular origami legs. The Gardiner, itself, isn't the problem here. The streetscaping on the ground is horrible. The N/S sidewalks are tiny, it's kinda dirty, it's very grey (but for the white Gardiner above). I'll try to take some pictures this weekend. I think people would be surprised

 

[TKTKTK]

Except that you can potentially urbanize the northern edge of the Boulevard (as suggested in the EBF Masterplan). Try doing that with the Gardiner in place?

Then isn't it just land reclamation?

Why don't we worry about this extra slice once we've built out the south a bit.

 

[nfitz]

Eight years? That's insane.

Agreed - there's no way they'll be able to pull this off that fast. I'll bet you we are still discussing this in 2016 - okay perhaps they'll have started something, but it won't be open yet.

Did this document get released then. The drawings in today's Star looked more like they were moving the Gardiner to run along the edge of the railway tracks, than it being removed.

Though the current alignment isn't optimum, I'm not convinced how a 10-lane street is less of a barrier than the existing structure. I've never hard difficult walking underneath the existing structure - but where the piece of old Gardiner was already removed at Leslie street there are signs warning pedestrians that it will take 2 cycles of the lights for them to cross Lakeshore, because it is 7-lanes wide. Sure 10-lanes might work in other cities for pedestrians - but you know that the traffic-light-gods in TO won't ever let that happen here

Edit - to answer some of my question - yes, looks like the information is here: http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/dyna...1b08&second=4644b9f62b745&third=442ee40e416d7

Reading the presentation - first bullet for preferred - "Replacement with University Avenue-style boulevard" Uh yeah - another University Avenue concrete scar - that's supposed to be a good thing??????

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The connection was blight.

If you chose the view that no "blight" is legitimate, sure. Be careful how you walk down that road though, because you can argue that basically any change made on the basis of aesthetics are by default invalid. I'd rather not go down that road.

Ok, 2 firms surely exhausted all potential ideas. I wonder what we'd come up with if the effort to tear down the Gardiner had been equally applied to expoliting it.

If you need that much effort to make something better when a simpler option would provide an equal, if not superior outcome, I think it's a pretty good indicator which option is better.

The on/off ramps for the west-bound lanes aren't a problem in this area as they're tucked alongside the giant rail berm that acts as the real barrier to movement towards the waterfront. The lone east-bound ramp past Jarvis doesn't seem like that big of a deal.

Barrier of movement is different from psychological barriers, as I have already mentioned before. It might be less of an issue along this stretch, but certainly the issue for the rest of the Gardiner.

The lowest section of the Gardiner, the area running between Yonge and Bay is awesome. That's where the supports turn into these angular origami legs. The Gardiner, itself, isn't the problem here. The streetscaping on the ground is horrible.

The legs might be aesthetically interesting. It doesn't excuse the ugliness of the rest of the structure.

The Gardiner, itself, isn't the problem here. The streetscaping on the ground is horrible. The N/S sidewalks are tiny, it's kinda dirty, it's very grey (but for the white Gardiner above). I'll try to take some pictures this weekend. I think people would be surprised

Why is that space tiny, dirty and very grey, if the space is so aesthetically desirable to start off with? Have it occurred that it might just be a side effect of its' utilitarian nature?

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

If you chose the view that no "blight" is legitimate, sure. Be careful how you walk down that road though, because you can argue that basically any change made on the basis of aesthetics are by default invalid. I'd rather not go down that road.

I think the line is flexible. I'm willing to bend it enough to include the Gardiner.

If you need that much effort to make something better when a simpler option would provide an equal, if not superior outcome, I think it's a pretty good indicator which option is better.

It's a project ripe for an international (or even just national) competition. It certainly has the potential for massive impact (imagine a positive impact as great as the negative one it makes now). We hardly need an international competition to know that though, just flip through the countless threads on here for good ideas. I'm sure a couple could easily be worked out

Barrier of movement is different from psychological barriers, as I have already mentioned before. It might be less of an issue along this stretch, but certainly the issue for the rest of the Gardiner.

The legs might be aesthetically interesting. It doesn't excuse the ugliness of the rest of the structure.

That assumes you can't do anything about the rest (well, other than tear it down).

Why is that space tiny, dirty and very grey, if the space is so aesthetically desirable to start off with? Have it occurred that it might just be a side effect of its' utilitarian nature?

As I said, it's not the Gardiner (it's white / off-white here). It's the poles, the side walk, the curbs, the railings...everything everyone normally complains about in the Shabby Toronto thread. Here JUST the street-level infrastructure is ruining perhaps the Gardiner's only shining moment.

 

[Blovertis]

Yes, it can indeed be beautiful in spots - like the section around Fort York (as contextually inappropriate as it is).
AoD

I suppose you're throwing a bone to one of the very few who find the Gardiner "beautiful" but, I'm sorry, let's just frankly and unashamedly call it ugly, from beginning to end. It's simply a mistake -- badly conceived, badly executed.

Yes, there is an analogy with St. James Town -- not because the public shortsightedly applauds the destruction of "blights" only to regret it a generation later -- but because both SJT and the Gardiner are products of the funadamentally anti-human urban renewal philosophies of the 1950s and 60s.

The sooner both of these barren and over-scaled lumps of concrete come down, the better.

 

[Blovertis]

As I said, it's not the Gardiner (it's white / off-white here). It's the poles, the side walk, the curbs, the railings...everything everyone normally complains about in the Shabby Toronto thread. Here JUST the street-level infrastructure is ruining perhaps the Gardiner's only shining moment.

So you're saying the Gardiner was a fine idea in theory, it's just that we cheap and slovenly Torontonians let down the side by not spending the hundreds of millions of dollars that was required to make it pretty.

Reminds me of the people who continue to insist that invading Iraq would have worked if three times as many troops had been sent in.

 

[TKTKTK]

http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/pdf/hcd_union_builther_invent.pdf

The bit I was talking about earlier is on 141 (57).