It's our fault that the Gardiner is a barrier.
40 some years of neglect has left it arid and deserted. We have heard of countless cities who have successfully removed their freeways and 'opened up their waterfronts,' yet so far, only San Francisco has been cited as evidence.
What has not been addressed is that (and I'll use the pro-removal camp's word here) 'countless' other cities have made such structures work in a way which connects them to the urban fabric, not isolates them to the point of dysfunction. There are 'countless' ways to integrate our 'skyways' into the city, using the sheltered space created there for weather-proof activities.
Vancouver for example, took space under the Georgia Viaduct and created a skatepark which now draws professional and amateur users from all over the world. Tokyo not only has elevated highways running through its core, but local and high-speed rail as well. The space underneath features plants, smaller roads and in many places, storefronts and small parks. Even Rome, which I had the fortune of returning to last summer, has elevated highways running through residential zones yet because the space underneath has been valued instead of abandoned, it works.
The pro-demolitioners have consistently shrugged off the most pressing issue here: where will the traffic go? While some hide behind a romanticized picture of a large, landscaped street would eliminating traffic by forcing people to take other routes or abandon their cars altogether, one must question the logic behind bringing a partial-barrier (one which you can walk, drive, play or work under) down to street level, where it instantly becomes a total barrier. The simple reality is that the Gardiner works well.
I return to my opening remark: this barrier is our fault. Because we have neglected perfectly usable swathes of land, allowed the structure itself to crumble, Lakeshore to deteriorate and the pedestrian realm to disappear, we can now take solace in the fact that 120,000 cars will be brought down to the pedestrian level. To quote our crooked old friend and former mayor: faaaaaaantastic!
This brings me to my final point. Why not use the exorbitant amount of money which may be spent tearing down a piece of our modernist heritage, to celebrate it. Revitalizing and reintegrating this fine piece of engineering back into the city would be a responsible and cost-effective way of showing a forgotten expressway a little love from the family who earnestly birthed it.
I'll close with a quote from Calvin Brook, writing in Concrete Toronto (pp. 183-184); one of the better books to come out in the recent past about our fine city.
"Herein lies the problem at the heart of the Gardiner debate - the 'barrier effect' ascribed to the Gardiner is simply misplaced. The barrier is a result of neglect of the space underneath, a blind spot in our collective understanding of civic space in the city. Yet these conditions are easily fixed, at a fraction of the cost of alternatives such as demolition and replacement with an at-grade roadway or tunneling.
Today there remains a large contingent of urbanists in Toronto who believe the Gardiner Expressway should be torn down. The biggest obstacle they face is a simple reality - it works incredibly well. For those traveling above, passing between the city's towers, it remains an efficient transportation solution and a source of unique urban vistas and exhilaration...Remember that the Gardiner is an eight-kilometer long bridge...This allows freedom of movement at street level that could never be achieved with an at-grade road system. Yes, the expressway could be torn down and the traffic could be inserted into a new, expanded surface-road system. But the barrier impact would be unprecedented."
"Any questions?"
