Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[AlvinofDiaspar]

He has serious concerns about the veracity of the information their basing their case on - but he still supports it anyway, partly because he doesn't want to be the one to challenge it.

If he believes so genuinely that the studies are so flawed, then his position requires him to do what he believes is necessary. The very fact that he didn't put into question the veracity of his concerns and/or his motives as a political appointee in the first place.

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The pictures are presented more or less parallel to the elevated roadway to facilitate comparison.

Tokyo:

Gardiner East:

AoD

 

[adma]

Organized support for the Gardiner has been virtually non-existant, most people think it's hardly in danger of going anywhere If that starts to seem likely to change, I think we might all be surprised be the public reaction. The middle section near Union Station is already on Preservation Toronto's radar...http://www.toronto.ca/heritage-preservation/pdf/hcd_union_builther_invent.pdf

That's as part of the Union Station HCD, not specifically as a built object in its own right--heck, some of the newest and yet-unbuilt condos in that zone also fall under the HCD. So, it's a little more complicated than "save this Pretty Heritage Object"....

 

[adma]

And most calls for preserving it have been hysterical rather than rational - and I might add, those who calls for tearing it down can least it put forth reports based on rational analysis. Can't say the same for the con side.

Well, if we were to summon something coming from some kind of John Van Nostrand/Graeme Stewart axis, we *would* have a pro-preservation report of sorts based on rational analysis--and yes, using examples like Tokyo to reinforce the argument.

Unfortunately, TKTKTK strikes me as flypaper for James Alcock types rather than John Van Nostrand types.

And while it's one thing to hail the retention/intensification of the Gardiner a la Tokyo from an urban visionary standpoint, it's another to outright condemn the decision otherwise as a horrific tragedy of urban shortsightedness--even the likes of John Van Nostrand wouldn't go that far...

 

[TKTKTK]

Well, if we were to summon something coming from some kind of John Van Nostrand/Graeme Stewart axis, we *would* have a pro-preservation report of sorts based on rational analysis--and yes, using examples like Tokyo to reinforce the argument.

Unfortunately, TKTKTK strikes me as flypaper for James Alcock types rather than John Van Nostrand types.

Do you think either is reading this forum? I'm really concerned about the right kind of public-figure validation. *worry*

And while it's one thing to hail the retention/intensification of the Gardiner a la Tokyo from an urban visionary standpoint, it's another to outright condemn the decision otherwise as a horrific tragedy of urban shortsightedness--even the likes of John Van Nostrand wouldn't go that far...

Well, I've been trying to open the dialogue to the first part - but keep getting bogged down in having to defend a thousand positions at once

I'd much rather we were having a civil discussion about what innovative uses we can come up with for the existing Gardiner, but instead I have to answer a lot of, I'm sure, well-intended derision and condescension

 

[TKTKTK]

That's as part of the Union Station HCD, not specifically as a built object in its own right--heck, some of the newest and yet-unbuilt condos in that zone also fall under the HCD. So, it's a little more complicated than "save this Pretty Heritage Object"....

I understand, and I think it's a pretty important first step.

 

[TKTKTK]

The pictures are presented more or less parallel to the elevated roadway to facilitate comparison.

It gets much higher than that!

You're showing probably the lowest section along that length. Just walk a bit further down.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You're showing probably the lowest section along that length. Just walk a bit further down.

Actually no. The pic is from Parliament - and the stretch from Jarvis eastward has little to no grade change. The only section where the expressway is raised significantly is along the Keating Channel and the flyover over Don to DVP. I have also confirmed this observation by comparisons with the cross section of the expressway in the Gardiner Expressway Transformation [GET] Project Presentation of Concept and Transformation Plans (2003) report by John van Nostrand (!), Calvin Brook and Jim Gough. In fact, the base of the roadeck for the Gardiner is only about 3s high in the central section, and a slight bit over 2s in the eastern sections.

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

Indeed, and those who wish to follow it can. I don't recall however at any point that any of the points you suggested as having been rested actually are.

Well, I did suggest that you were conveniently forgetting things earlier. But, I'm sure this isn't an example.

There is absolutely NO data to suggest it's so negative that it is an impossible task with disastrous consequences, but plenty to suggest it's positive and doable. There is also no suggestion that a University Avenue style route is impossible - just that it has negative consequences that will have to be balanced in the EA process.

Umm, ok. Well, I think solutions with negative consequences like a lack of capacity sort of rule themselves out, but...

I don't, but the organizations tasked with the creation of these reports have expertise beyond what you and I have. So naturally I will trust them more than your assertion that it will cost a lowly 100M. None of the reports I have in possession supporting the Gardiner to be kept has any figures on how much it will cost (not to mention serious technical problems with the presentation of their proposal which leads one to suspect the quality of the work in them in the first place).

You asked for a number, as if I had to have one, so I threw one out there for you. I did give it a range of up to $200 million Not happy? I can revise my number: 200-250? 172-234?

I never said anything about equal - I said comparable. We know there are differences in the scope of the projects - and the price tag differences shows it (~40M vs. 300+M) No one is suggesting tearing down this stretch is going to cost just as little - but there is precedence in Toronto of tasks of this nature.

Well, no there isn't really. Precedence for tearing down an aerial highway, sure. But not successfully replacing it with a pedestrian-friendly surface road. I think the challenges posed by this section are far more complex than those faced by the Leslie St. stub. But there's years for them to discover that.

Indeed. Since you are a visual kind of guy, perhaps you should drag out an image of the underside of the Gardiner, with the same POV as the pic you've presented and let us see just how comparable it is?

Sure, I said I'd take some pics before - and I haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't think it needs to be the exact same POV, we have the opportunity for different solutions that are tailor made to our situation - we don't need to lazily apply the Tokyo example directly

I wasn't the one saying I have the interests of cyclists and pedestrians in mind - you are. So please stop putting words into my mouth and own up to what you've said. Beyond that, if you are so confident in your position wrt to the "city at large", well, why get so upset on this forum?

Huh? Putting words in your mouth? What are you talking about?

You're trying to tell me that I don't have pedestrians or cyclists in mind, and I'm telling you that I do.

I'm not upset. I'm amused if anything, that's why I keep responding, and don't need to go in for the personal attacks. I think the topic is really fascinating - and is the starting point to a bunch of really interesting conversations

I think there are a lot of possibilities for the Gardiner that are a lot more interesting than tearing it down and replacing it with a regular boulevard - especially considering that we're not really hurting for boulevard options (Queen's Quay, Cheery St, etc). I wish we spent more time day dreaming about the future than arguing about minute details, though I'm just as guilty of that. Try as I might, it's hard for me to ignore someone trying to misrepresent my comments. I just HAVE to respond. Bad, bad.

I only learn from the best, TKTKTK - or was that Tit-for-Tat?

Cheer up Alvin!

 

[TKTKTK]

Actually no. The pic is from Parliament - and the stretch from Jarvis eastward has little to no grade change. The only section where the expressway is raised significantly is along the Keating Channel and the flyover over Don to DVP. I have also confirmed this observation by comparisons with the cross section of the expressway in the Gardiner Expressway Transformation [GET] Project Presentation of Concept and Transformation Plans (2003) report by John van Nostrand (!), Calvin Brook and Jim Gough. In fact, the base of the roadeck for the Gardiner is only about 3s high in the central section, and a slight bit over 2s in the eastern sections.

Oh, ok. So it does get higher further along The section by the Keating Channel is great, I just wish the bottom of the deck was covered. I always have to close the sunroof when I drive that way

The shorter 2s sections are plenty high. Well, unless people in the future are giants. Can you imagine?! How scary!

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Umm, ok. Well, I think solutions with negative consequences like a lack of capacity sort of rule themselves out, but...

Building a road has negative consequences; tearing down a road has negative consequences. The question is whether at the end of the day the benefits justifies the negative effects. That's the job of the EA and the decision makers.

You asked for a number, as if I had to have one, so I threw one out there for you. I did give it a range of up to $200 million Not happy? I can revise my number: 200-250? 172-234?

If that's what your responses are when asked for information backed up by facts, I have nothing to say - I rest my case.

Well, no there isn't really. Precedence for tearing down an aerial highway, sure. But not successfully replacing it with a pedestrian-friendly surface road. I think the challenges posed by this section are far more complex than those faced by the Leslie St. stub. But there's years for them to discover that.

Sure it is more complex - but is it so dramatically complex as to preclude execution or otherwise beyond the realm of any reasonable engineering cost estimates? Doubtful.

Sure, I said I'd take some pics before - and I haven't gotten around to it yet. I don't think it needs to be the exact same POV, we have the opportunity for different solutions that are tailor made to our situation - we don't need to lazily apply the Tokyo example directly.

Except your use of the example in Tokyo (and I can give you a far more exhaustive list of "creative" examples of livening the space underneath expressways) is ultimately so dramatically different from the reality in Toronto that the comparison as to "hows things can be" is misleading, at best. The report I've cited earlier is guilty of exactly the same thing - which, believe it or not, is what put me back into the camp of tearing the thing down.

I will post this again to make the point:

Tokyo:

Gardiner East:

You're trying to tell me that I don't have pedestrians or cyclists in mind, and I'm telling you that I do.

You have what you think are best for pedestrians or cyclists. Do not confuse that with what they actually think are best for them. There is a term for this line of thinking - paternalism. Is it really about their interests? Or is it about selling your interests as coinciding as theirs?

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Oh, ok. So it does get higher further along The section by the Keating Channel is great, I just wish the bottom of the deck was covered. I always have to close the sunroof when I drive that way

That's not a short distance away. The section that is relatively low are right along the northern edge of East Bayfront where developments are poised to start. In addition, the Keating channel area is current undergoing another EA that will see dramatic changes to the character of the precinct

The shorter 2s sections are plenty high. Well, unless people in the future are giants. Can you imagine?! How scary!

Heck, under this argument of yours, as long as a person can fit in, it doesn't matter if there is only 1 cm to spare - it's still not a barrier. I am sure reality works that way.

AoD

 

[TKTKTK]

Building a road has negative consequences; tearing down a road has negative consequences. The question is whether at the end of the day the benefits justifies the negative effects. That's the job of the EA and the decision makers.

Yes, I understand that every action has consequences which is why I said "consequences like a lack of capacity" (which seems like a fundamental requirement for a new road?)

If that's what your responses are when asked for information backed up by facts, I have nothing to say - I rest my case.

Well, I was pretty honest from the beginning that I was just making the number up for you. I'm not sure why that's suddenly a revelation.

No, do you? [...] So let's say $100-150 million for a retrofit of the Gardiner. You would likely be able to fund it, in part, from leasing out the area underneath it. It would be awesome if there was a government agency exploring my idea as well - that way I could smugly make it sound like all this was the result of my own hard work, and then throw all sorts of extra attitude at someone who disagrees with me

Sure it is more complex - but is it so dramatically complex as to preclude execution or otherwise beyond the realm of any reasonable engineering cost estimates? Doubtful.

Well, with an open mind like that...

Except your use of the example in Tokyo (and I can give you a far more exhaustive list of "creative" examples of livening the space underneath expressways)

Then do! I'm interested! It won't go unappreciated

You have what you think are best for pedestrians or cyclists. Do not confuse that with what they actually think.

Uh, no, Alvin. You have what you think pedestrians and cyclists actually have in mind when you compare what you think about what they think to what I think they think - not actually what they think about(1). Because if you could actually know what other people were thinking about, why would you waste that power here?



(1) Hahah, that was so fun to write

 

[TKTKTK]

The shorter 2s sections are plenty high. Well, unless people in the future are giants. Can you imagine?! How scary!

Heck, under this argument of yours, as long as a person can fit in, it doesn't matter if there is only 1 cm to spare - it's still not a barrier. I am sure reality works that way.

Umm, I'm not sure I follow. We're talking about a 2s space here. Oh! Haha! Now I know what you mean! Alvin, I was only kidding about the giants! I don't actually think there are going to be any - we probably don't need to worry if they have only 1 cm to spare.

 

[adma]

Except your use of the example in Tokyo (and I can give you a far more exhaustive list of "creative" examples of livening the space underneath expressways) is ultimately so dramatically different from the reality in Toronto that the comparison as to "hows things can be" is misleading, at best. The report I've cited earlier is guilty of exactly the same thing - which, believe it or not, is what put me back into the camp of tearing the thing down.

Let's put it this way: if there truly were a comparable example to Tokyo's in Toronto, it wouldn't be the Gardiner. It'd be if the Spadina Expressway were completed as an elevated road (as opposed to a Decarie-style trench) along present-day Spadina Avenue--in which case, "(re)urbanization" could proceed quite rationally.

In a similar spirit, funny how various elevated rapid transit lines in New York, Paris etc haven't been mentioned. But again; it's not just a matter of *what* it is, but of *where* it is...