Roads: Gardiner Expressway

[GraphicMatt]

Clean out your bong!

Pittsburgh and Cleveland have more in common with the Toronto (in terms of size, demography, population, geography) than Manhattan, London or Paris. Or Seoul or Bangkok.
Pity that you would compare our traffic to Manhattan, which has St. Jamestown's density up and down its length. I'd rather compare our traffic to more 'modern cities,' thanks. London and Paris' issues have everything to do with their age (1,000+ years) and their doubled size.

Pittsburgh has a city population of 312,819 (Metro: 2,400,000) and a density of 2,174 people per sq km. Cleveland has a city population of 478,403 (metro: 2,250,000) and a density of 2380 people per sq km. Toronto has a city population of 2,503,281 (Metro: 4,700,000) and a density of 3,972 people per sq km. I don't see how your comparison adds up.

Toronto also ranks way higher in pretty much every single livability metric, except for maybe highways construction.

Toronto is not a New York or a London, sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at how they operate as successful cities. Do you really think Toronto would be better off if it were more like Cleveland?

 

[Dichotomy]

I don't really things are a polarizing as you might think... Barely more than half of Ontario voted in the last election. I think the opposite of polarization is happening: people are just not caring at all.

That's my point: the issues in elections are always hijacked by self-interest groups. Did Miller even speak about tearing down the Gardiner? No.
Instead, we get the island airport bridge. Who gives a crap? We get the homeless-lobby and the anti-poverty industry hijacking the agenda.
Something like 43% of the eligible voters voted in the last municipal election. Doesn't that tell you something? The issues were never discussed.
Politicians are afraid of raising the ire of the retired school teachers and other ilk who have time on their hands.

 

[Dichotomy]

Pittsburgh has a city population of 312,819 (Metro: 2,400,000) and a density of 2,174 people per sq km. Cleveland has a city population of 478,403 (metro: 2,250,000) and a density of 2380 people per sq km. Toronto has a city population of 2,503,281 (Metro: 4,700,000) and a density of 3,972 people per sq km. I don't see how your comparison adds up.

Toronto also ranks way higher in pretty much every single livability metric, except for maybe highways construction.

Toronto is not a New York or a London, sure, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at how they operate as successful cities. Do you really think Toronto would be better off if it were more like Cleveland?

London passed 1 million when the horse and buggy were all the rage. Toronto didn't pass 1 million until the '50s. Which city should have a more balanced, intelligent transit/highway plan?
We should have known better, but small-minded people in the early twentieth century strangled growth in this sleepy burg. (Sunday shopping? bars closed on Sunday - and that only goes back a decade or so!)
Whether you like it or not, our growth and our culture is more closely linked to cities like Pittsburgh and Cleveland then London or Paris. We need North American solutions to our challenges, not European ones.

 

[urbanboom]

However, this rapidly degenerates into an 'us' versus 'them' argument. If that's your thinking, then the Dome should have been built on Sheppard, as was originally proposed. If we insist on putting all the 'cultural' venues downtown, then we're going to have to tolerate the riff-raff from Uxbridge coming to them.

If we want to have our cultural venues downtown, (and I think we should) people should live downtown as well. In order for the core to survive, desification is key. We've been seeing a lot of it recently: Condos! Condos! Condos!

You can't have one without the other.
And what good is it if our downtown is alive only Monday to Friday, 9 to 5?
Though I may disagree with the individual projects, since many of them are flawed, I would still much rather see one of them go up then the anti-pedestrian, land eating McMansions going up in the 905.

 

[unimaginative2]

Dichotomy, do you actually want our city to be more like Pittsburgh and Cleveland than Paris or London (or any number of other smaller European cities)? Tearing up a city to widen roads has proven to be an extremely unsuccessful route to the creation of a successful city.

 

[Dichotomy]

If we want to have our cultural venues downtown, (and I think we should) people should live downtown as well. In order for the core to survive, desification is key. We've been seeing a lot of it recently: Condos! Condos! Condos!

You can't have one without the other.
And what good is it if our downtown is alive only Monday to Friday, 9 to 5?
Though I may disagree with the individual projects, since many of them are flawed, I would still much rather see one of them go up then the anti-pedestrian, land eating McMansions going up in the 905.

But both have a purpose. I"ve watched many of my peers from university/party days turn into Stepford parents, move to the suburbs, while my older business associates are moving into condos.

To every season..............

 

[Dichotomy]

Dichotomy, do you actually want our city to be more like Pittsburgh and Cleveland than Paris or London (or any number of other smaller European cities)? Tearing up a city to widen roads has proven to be an extremely unsuccessful route to the creation of a successful city.

I've never said that. That ship has passed. I would have preferred Jarvis, Bloor/Danforth, Kingston Rd., O'Connor, etc. HAD BEEN widened to 6 lanes 30,50,70 years ago when the opportunity was there.

What I am saying is that as flawed as the DVP/Gardiner are, they are all we have. Tearing them down or lobotamizing them will tear at the very fabric of this city. Whether we built more (unneeded) condos in the Portlands or not, will not ruin the fabric of the city (I'd rather see that money go to Sunnyside and places that we DO have), but I believe (IMHO) that we need to expand those two highways (wherever possible) while expanding the subways, too.

Our problems/challenges have more in common with other 'rust belt' medium-sized cities who are also facing challenges, rather than 'first tier' cities like Paris and London. Although it would be nice if someday Toronto had 10+ million people and was the center of all commerce/culture in north-eastern North America, I don't think that is ever going to happen - not with New YOrk and Chicago already so well established and close by.

 

[TKTKTK]

Dichotomy, do you actually want our city to be more like Pittsburgh and Cleveland than Paris or London (or any number of other smaller European cities)? Tearing up a city to widen roads has proven to be an extremely unsuccessful route to the creation of a successful city.

Wait, didn't both Paris and London do exactly that?

 

[Glen]

London passed 1 million when the horse and buggy were all the rage. Toronto didn't pass 1 million until the '50s. Which city should have a more balanced, intelligent transit/highway plan?
We should have known better, but small-minded people in the early twentieth century strangled growth in this sleepy burg. (Sunday shopping? bars closed on Sunday - and that only goes back a decade or so!)
Whether you like it or not, our growth and our culture is more closely linked to cities like Pittsburgh and Cleveland then London or Paris. We need North American solutions to our challenges, not European ones.

You hit the nail on the head. Toronto is the largest small town in the world.

 

[Whoaccio]

Whether you like it or not, our growth and our culture is more closely linked to cities like Pittsburgh and Cleveland then London or Paris. We need North American solutions to our challenges, not European ones.

What solution has Cleveland had? You're arguments would be more believable if Toronto was abnormally worse off than, say, Cleveland or Atlanta. The issues you complain about most (the downtown becoming an unattractive place to live and do business) have been most acute in the cities you hold up as solutions.

For instance, you would argue that if we fail to build widen the Gardiner, Toronto will turn into a ghost town. Every city that has followed what you suggest to do is already a ghost town though. Honestly, why the hell should we follow Cleveland, Ghost Town of America, anywhere?

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Dude, you need to post more!

I've never said that. That ship has passed. I would have preferred Jarvis, Bloor/Danforth, Kingston Rd., O'Connor, etc. HAD BEEN widened to 6 lanes 30,50,70 years ago when the opportunity was there.

What I am saying is that as flawed as the DVP/Gardiner are, they are all we have. Tearing them down or lobotamizing them will tear at the very fabric of this city. Whether we built more (unneeded) condos in the Portlands or not, will not ruin the fabric of the city (I'd rather see that money go to Sunnyside and places that we DO have), but I believe (IMHO) that we need to expand those two highways (wherever possible) while expanding the subways, too.

Our problems/challenges have more in common with other 'rust belt' medium-sized cities who are also facing challenges, rather than 'first tier' cities like Paris and London. Although it would be nice if someday Toronto had 10+ million people and was the center of all commerce/culture in north-eastern North America, I don't think that is ever going to happen - not with New YOrk and Chicago already so well established and close by.

Been reading your posts, and it took until this one for you to shift your arguments into the past. Keep posting, and you might get to the point where you completely disagree with your (earlier) self!

Roads are not the city, and the DVP/Gardiner is most definitely NOT the 'fabric of the city'. I would argue that the portion of the Gardiner which cuts through the bottom of the city is exactly the opposite -- it's designed to allow people to bypass the city, not interact with it.

As a resident of Riverdale, I want to be able to use my arterials to get north -- not affected by this teardown. To get west -- this'll cost me the extra minutes from Carlaw to the CNE (5 mins.? Maybe?).

OTOH, pulling down the Gardiner and building Sherbourne park, the Queen's Quay bikepaths, the connected Harbourfront boardwalk, West Donlands parkland and neighbourhood, and finally East Bayfront does nothing but improve my life. Your major argument -- 'but how do I get to Walmart?', if I may paraphrase -- will be answered by building a new Walmart JUST FOR YOU on Lakeshore at Leslie. We all win!

As for your Pittsburgh/Cleveland idiocy -- c'mon. Toronto TODAY is both the premier city in Canada and the second most important city in N.A., with L.A. the only arguable alternative. Chicago/SF/Atlanta? Regional centres at best.

So... aim for NYC. Raise the city centre density! Build an iconic park to relieve the non-green misery of the apartment (condo) dwellers! Make the centre of the city and the harbour so beautiful that it becomes a tourist attraction! TEAR DOWN THE GARDINER!!

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Exactly!!

You hit the nail on the head. Toronto is the largest small town in the world.

And let's keep it that way! By far the BEST thing about living here (as opposed to Paris and Washington and Calgary, which are my family's points of comparison) are the things that make Toronto the largest small town in the world -- farmers' market in Withrow Park. Riverdale Farm. St. Lawrence Market. Biking down to the Spit or the Beach. Annual pass to the ROM (and annual pass to lunch at Gabby's.) Skating at Moss Park Arena. Swimming at Jimmy Simpson. Walking to the shops/restaurants on Queen East or Danforth.

Vive la plus grande petite village du monde!

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

And in a Dichotomy-like third post in a row...

Wait, didn't both Paris and London do exactly that?

Yeah, but they had to do that to install the anti-cholera sewers, and it uprooted a good portion of the city's citizens. Do you really want pattern your city building after Baron and his bulldozers?

 

[TKTKTK]

Yeah, but they had to do that to install the anti-cholera sewers, and it uprooted a good portion of the city's citizens. Do you really want pattern your city building after Baron and his bulldozers?

If we ended up with Paris or London? Gee, let me think about that for a second.


BTW: I'm not calling for wider avenues, or wider roads. Just pointing out that a big city tearing shit down to widen roads and avenues isn't that crazy of an idea, despite how it's often phrased that way. AND, both of those cities did it long before the advent of the automobile.

 

[Just_Chris]

"So... aim for NYC. Raise the city centre density! Build an iconic park to relieve the non-green misery of the apartment (condo) dwellers! Make the centre of the city and the harbour so beautiful that it becomes a tourist attraction! TEAR DOWN THE GARDINER!!"

NYC (Manhattan) has freeways running along both the Hudson and East Rivers, and no one to my knowledge has suggested tearing either down.