Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Is it desirable to look at landmarks through structures? No. Luckily, we don't have to worry about that in Toronto as the Gardiner (at least the section we're talking and talking about) doesn't block anything.

If there was a building like the Ferry Terminal hiding behind the Gardiner, suffering in seclusion - I would join your ranks and call for the Gardiner to be torn down. It's just not the same though.

But no, that's not what you've said - you said that Gardiner isn't a barrier at all - note:

Funnily enough, if they'd built the Embarcadero the same way our Gardiner was built (the two directions running on the same high deck) they wouldn't have lost that ferry terminal they later found. They'd have seen it right through!

So what is it, exactly? That it isn't a barrier, or is it? You can see through it, but it isn't a barrier in San Fran, but it is? (let me take away the Ferry Terminal and replace it with say, the view of the waterfront in a street canyon, what then?)

I'm not sure that's the Gardiner's fault. Toronto's architecture is pretty bland most of the time - we've had countless discussions about that. I think the first sets of buildings along Queen's Quay suffered from bad design (that was maybe inspired by the Gardiner initially) but we've picked up since then. I think the buildings along the water front are too modest and location-appropriate to really register in the collective psyche - well, other than as a pleasant chorus we're happy to hum along with.

Err no, like how many people truly have a grasp of the facade of Air Canada Centre? Or the Toronto Harbour Commission building? Bland architecture didn't stop people from knowing other buildings strangely. In addition, we haven't even talked about the role of access and view and how it affects knowing structures, as an extension of the urban environment.

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

But no, that's not what you've said - you said that Gardiner isn't a barrier at all - note:

So what is it, exactly? That it isn't a barrier, or is it? You can see through it, but it isn't a barrier in San Fran, but it is? (let me take away the Ferry Terminal and replace it with say, the view of the waterfront in a street canyon, what then?)

Umm I haven't said anything contradictory. I said the Gardiner wasn't blocking the view to anything, and I maintain that it's not a barrier.

So which is it? No barrier. It's not a canyon - it's a covered route. Canyons have sides and no top, like a rail embankment (but inverted)

Err no, like how many people truly have a grasp of the facade of Air Canada Centre? Or the Toronto Harbour Commission building? Bland architecture didn't stop people from knowing other buildings strangely. In addition, we haven't even talked about the role of access and view and how it affects knowing structures, as an extension of the urban environment.

What does the Harbour building, or the Air Canada Centre have to do with the section of the Gardiner east of Jarvis?

ZZzzzz zzzz zzzz.

I get it, you guys can't imagine Toronto in the future without tearing down the Gardiner. It's not a psychological barrier to the waterfront, it's a psychological barrier to progress. Neither of our opinions is likely to change, and since we're only rehashing the same arguments over and over again, I doubt we'll do anything but solidify our positions.

 

[Jarrek]

Implode & demolish it - all of it from the Humber River to the Don.

 

[TKTKTK]

As to the quality of your daily lives - well, you chose to drive during rush hour, didn't you? What did you expect? Spending down the highway at 100kph? Sorry, but you are the cause of your own misery.

Rushhour? What are you talking about? People are worried there is going to be heavy traffic all day round, not just at the usual bottleneck times.

Interesting that you chose such a selective act of emancipation...then again, I suppose those who benefits from Gardiner's removal aren't exactly worthy to be empowered given the importance of your highness needs.

Well, right now tearing down that portion of the Gardiner will directly benefit no one. The whole area is virtually empty. In contrast, it's an immediate impact on those that use it. And honestly, put down that old saw about the only users of the DVP and Gardiner being from the suburbs. The City of Toronto is hardly the island of pedestrianism and biking you think it is.

Oh and I guess I must thank you for engaging us - now I am much more inclined to actively participate in the process and otherwise write to the various councillors, MPPs and the mayor - to encourage them that this is indeed the right decision.

And your letter writing's encouraged mine! I'll have more impressive letterhead though

 

[GraphicMatt]

No one would support building it today

The thing about the Gardiner (and this proposed tear-down of the east-end section would probably mean I'd have to change jobs, so I don't say this lightly) is this: if we were to start again fresh, would ANYONE really argue in favour of a six-lane elevated highway right on the waterfront? I can't imagine there are many people, except for maybe those who learned about urban planning from 'Retarded Urban Planning Weekly', who would even consider it.

Maybe that's unfair. We did build it. And it DOES work as an east-west conveyer of people. But that doesn't mean we can't do better. I think we have to do better.

Tear down the Gardiner. Build a renewed lakeshore boulevard in its place with actual retail and condos/houses and put an LRT line down the middle. And build the DRL. That's a recipe for a great city.

 

[TKTKTK]

The thing about the Gardiner (and this proposed tear-down of the east-end section would probably mean I'd have to change jobs, so I don't say this lightly) is this: if we were to start again fresh, would ANYONE really argue in favour of a six-lane elevated highway right on the waterfront? I can't imagine there are many people, except for maybe those who learned about urban planning from 'Retarded Urban Planning Weekly', who would even consider it.

Right, but if we had it to do over again would we have built the CN Tower? Or filled in the lake to create extra land? Or built a subway on Bloor? Or filled in all the rivers and ravines? Probably not. Planning concepts change over time, it doesn't mean that the only reaction to antiquated planning is a tear down / do over. Plenty of cities have elevated highways running through (or in this case, near) their downtowns. Most of them deal with them far more deftly than this city does - the problem is it takes more than just the bare minimum of funds allocated to it. We need to do more than just keep repairing the Gardiner - it needs some TLC.

Maybe that's unfair. We did build it. And it DOES work as an east-west conveyer of people. But that doesn't mean we can't do better. I think we have to do better.

Absolutely. But I'm not sure doing better is replacing an Aerial highway with a surface one.

 

[CityPlaceN1]

You seriously saying we wouldn't have built the Bloor subway? Why?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Rushhour? What are you talking about? People are worried there is going to be heavy traffic all day round, not just at the usual bottleneck times.

There is NO heavy traffic on that section of the Gardiner all day round, and given the projected capacity of the replacement roadway, is there any evidence, other than "fear", that suggest it will be the case?

Well, right now tearing down that portion of the Gardiner will directly benefit no one. The whole area is virtually empty. In contrast, it's an immediate impact on those that use it.

I don't call having the waterfront developed to be something that will not directly benefit anyone. It's like arguing the city should only consider the opinions of those who are directly affected by say building a subway line as the baseline for an urban planning exercise.

And honestly, put down that old saw about the only users of the DVP and Gardiner being from the suburbs. The City of Toronto is hardly the island of pedestrianism and biking you think it is.

I didn't say "only" or even "majority" - I said a "good chunk" - which is what the numbers suggests - and I certainly didn't say the City is a paradise of pedestrianism and biking. It isn't like the current scheme proposed will somehow exclude automobile traffic as some the "the sky will fall when you tear down the Gardiner" rhetoric suggested around here.


AoD

 

[junctionist]

Right, but if we had it to do over again would we have built the CN Tower? Or filled in the lake to create extra land? Or built a subway on Bloor? Or filled in all the rivers and ravines? Probably not.

Besides that last course of action, I think we'd do all of those things again. What else was a mistake? Keeping Old City Hall standing?

 

[jmacmillan]

It's ugly and intrusive. Tear it down!

 

[TKTKTK]

Besides that last course of action, I think we'd do all of those things again. What else was a mistake? Keeping Old City Hall standing?

Each of those things would have been done differently (or not at all) had we re-addressed them 40 years on.

The CN Tower wouldn't have been built because it's communications tower use would have been long past.

We'd prefer a subway along Queen than the one we have along Bloor. There've been enough threads around here to make that clear.

And filling in the lake would be met with screams and cries from environmentalists

 

[TKTKTK]

There is NO heavy traffic on that section of the Gardiner all day round, and given the projected capacity of the replacement roadway, is there any evidence, other than "fear", that suggest it will be the case?

There's no evidence of either side, really. You're trusting a modeling report you've never seen.

There is heavy traffic though. On the Gardiner alone there are 120,000 vehicles a day. There's another road of similar capacity underneath it. I generally see the same number of cars (well, actually more) on the Lake Shore as I do on the Gardiner. So, let's say, all told...200,000 vehicles a day?

I don't call having the waterfront developed to be something that will not directly benefit anyone. It's like arguing the city should only consider the opinions of those who are directly affected by say building a subway line as the baseline for an urban planning exercise.

The waterfront has been, and will continue to be, developed with the Gardiner extant. You're arguing that the only way forward is to tear down the Gardiner. That's flatly wrong.

I didn't say "only" or even "majority" - I said a "good chunk" - which is what the numbers suggests - and I certainly didn't say the City is a paradise of pedestrianism and biking. It isn't like the current scheme proposed will somehow exclude automobile traffic as some the "the sky will fall when you tear down the Gardiner" rhetoric suggested around here.

I think everyone realizes that automobile traffic will keep running through this corridor. In fact, we keep pointing out that the traffic will not only keep running through this area, but ALL of it will now run through on the ground - so that we might cross it!

The current scheme proposed doesn't benefit anyone! Pedestrians and Cyclists will have to contend with even MORE traffic, and the city will lose the only cross-town route that bypasses inner city traffic.

But whatever, around and around we go. You would much rather cross a surface highway, I'd much rather cross underneath an aerial one (and out the area under it to productive use).

Can't we just agree to disagree? I have laundry to do tonight for tomorrow's Magazine Awards and you're distracting me

 

[adma]

We'd prefer a subway along Queen than the one we have along Bloor. There've been enough threads around here to make that clear.

Really? Given the sentiment about the Queen car, or just the "Queenness" of Queen, I'm not so certain we'd even be rallying for a Queen subway today.

If anything, we wouldn't build the Bloor line the same way, because we'd place it directly under the street rather than carving out a ROW swath to its north, disrupting neighbourhoods and maybe a few heritage landmarks...

 

[TKTKTK]

Really? Given the sentiment about the Queen car, or just the "Queenness" of Queen, I'm not so certain we'd even be rallying for a Queen subway today.

Believe me, I'm not expecting anything approaching a consensus. I just don't think the decision would have been as clear as it was then (though, I suppose, even then it was something of a toss up)

If anything, we wouldn't build the Bloor line the same way, because we'd place it directly under the street rather than carving out a ROW swath to its north, disrupting neighbourhoods and maybe a few heritage landmarks...

Why wasn't this done in the first place? They did it with portions of Yonge (though they could hardly help it in the core)

 

[adma]

Believe me, I'm not expecting anything approaching a consensus. I just don't think the decision would have been as clear as it was then (though, I suppose, even then it was something of a toss up)

Today, probably, the ledger would favour Bloor over Queen even more than four or five decades ago, not less...