junctionist
Senior Member
If we buried the Gardiner, we could build the park on the existing structure. It would be a High Line slayer of a park that would attract plenty of people. Access would be simple using the existing ramps for cars.
|
|
|
- Status
GraphicMatt
Looking forward to a FRESH START for Toronto
I continue to be frustrated with people who only view the Gardiner as a whole and can't separate the idea of MAYBE replacing the part from the DVP to Jarvis with tearing down the whole damn thing.
Second_in_pie
Senior Member
^^ I agree. And not only is the Gardiner actually a pretty vital arterial through the city, but I think you could do some cool stuff with it. Of course, assuming that you're actually going to maintain it, a slightly rebuilt and renewed Gardiner could actually be a contribution to the city if you ask me.
Imagine if you incorporated some buildings into the Gardiner? Through the core, line the underside with buildings and turn it into little semi-enclosed pedestrian streets? Further in the East, just sprucing up the underside and putting something actually worth walking to on the other side of it will be a big help. Add in pedestrian underpasses underneath on and off ramps. I think the only reason the Gardiner is a blight in the city is due to poor city planning and bad maintenance.
Imagine if you incorporated some buildings into the Gardiner? Through the core, line the underside with buildings and turn it into little semi-enclosed pedestrian streets? Further in the East, just sprucing up the underside and putting something actually worth walking to on the other side of it will be a big help. Add in pedestrian underpasses underneath on and off ramps. I think the only reason the Gardiner is a blight in the city is due to poor city planning and bad maintenance.
christof53
New Member
I cannot help but feel as if this "park" above the Gardiner idea is anything more but lipstick on a pig.
I think that most people believe that if we decide to demolish the part between the DVP and Jarvis, that we might as well 'take care' of the whole thing while we're at it, whether that is demolishing the rest of burying it. I don't think people view it as a whole, that if one part goes the rest must follow, but rather have a "go big or go home" mentality. If we're going to start a project as big as demolishing a long stretch of the Gardiner, let's do it properly and do it all in one fell swoop. I'm sure the same people would also argue to build the DRL along with the construction a Gardiner tunnel.
I think that most people believe that if we decide to demolish the part between the DVP and Jarvis, that we might as well 'take care' of the whole thing while we're at it, whether that is demolishing the rest of burying it. I don't think people view it as a whole, that if one part goes the rest must follow, but rather have a "go big or go home" mentality. If we're going to start a project as big as demolishing a long stretch of the Gardiner, let's do it properly and do it all in one fell swoop. I'm sure the same people would also argue to build the DRL along with the construction a Gardiner tunnel.
syn
Senior Member
If people think it's a barrier now, that would basically turn Toronto into a walled city.
kettal
Banned
Have you read Adam Zendel's other article?
http://thestar.blogs.com/yourcitymycity/2010/03/retail-in-our-neighborhoods.html
It sounds like he's never even been to downtown Toronto in his life...
http://thestar.blogs.com/yourcitymycity/2010/03/retail-in-our-neighborhoods.html
It sounds like he's never even been to downtown Toronto in his life...
Justin10000
Banned
The Gardiner is a vital artery, but how long can the City maintain the existing structure? It can imagine it must be costing the city quite a bit to maintain it. Eventually the city will have to replace the structure.
Mapleson
Active Member
It costs the City $6-10 million annually for repairs to the Gardiner. The Gardiner carries approximately 200,000 vehicles per day west of the downtown core, and approximately 120,000 vehicles per day east of Jarvis Street.
Taking down the Gardiner is not going to connect the Waterfront with the rest of the City. The rail corridor is in the way and should be electrified with cantenary poles by 2025 or so. It's the ramps and support columns that have an industrial look to them (as the Gardiner was originally designed to handle mostly material transport to the Harbour Front industries) and could do with some cladding to make them prettier.
In my opinion, the Gardiner gets the job done. If we want to add a third deck that's great, but put another road on top not an overpriced park.
Taking down the Gardiner is not going to connect the Waterfront with the rest of the City. The rail corridor is in the way and should be electrified with cantenary poles by 2025 or so. It's the ramps and support columns that have an industrial look to them (as the Gardiner was originally designed to handle mostly material transport to the Harbour Front industries) and could do with some cladding to make them prettier.
In my opinion, the Gardiner gets the job done. If we want to add a third deck that's great, but put another road on top not an overpriced park.
js97
Senior Member
Another one of those great 'feel' good ideas that's not well thought of.
with probably the worst public transit system in all of g7 major cities, i think there are other priorities we can address first... how about a few subway lines? Yes, it's not 4 billion... but 400 million here, 700 million for suicide barriers, 50 million for a 'green roof' for city hall, 12 million for a homeless shelter that's still not built, etc etc, we sure can manage to start diging a DRL or eglinton.
but on another note, we should charge tolls for people to go up there. People with out Toronto IDs get double charged!
with probably the worst public transit system in all of g7 major cities, i think there are other priorities we can address first... how about a few subway lines? Yes, it's not 4 billion... but 400 million here, 700 million for suicide barriers, 50 million for a 'green roof' for city hall, 12 million for a homeless shelter that's still not built, etc etc, we sure can manage to start diging a DRL or eglinton.
but on another note, we should charge tolls for people to go up there. People with out Toronto IDs get double charged!
kEiThZ
Superstar
I don't agree with getting rid of it just yet. Transit from the east is not as solid as transit coming from the West. Yet the focus is on demolishing the eastern Gardiner link? And that'll do wonders for the reputation of the Don Valley Parkinglot. First, provide alternate means to get those drivers off the road. Then do whatever you want with the link. I don't even think the cost argument has legs right now. Where is a city that has deficits which run into hundreds of millions supposed to draw up the money for replacing the Gardiner? $10 million per year in maintenance in such a scenario is eminently more affordable.
I do support imposing tolls to begin with and maybe setting an eventual goal to use the tolls to bury the highway over the long run.
I do support imposing tolls to begin with and maybe setting an eventual goal to use the tolls to bury the highway over the long run.
GTS
Active Member
I hope they get rid of the elevated portion as well, it is such an eyesore, but, it does move a lot of people and goods everyday.
Mapleson
Active Member
So which do you prefer? Eyesore or more congestion?
kEiThZ
Superstar
Eyesore. There are tons of other ways to make this city better looking. And to improve access to the waterfront. Do all that, before you take down the Gardiner. As much as I dislike the 'war on the car' crowd, I do wonder sometimes, if they should let the Gardiner takedown quietly slide. Nothing would galvanize voters like the congestion caused during the construction when they have no alternate driving route from the east and north into downtown and inadequate transit to get there too.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I think the shops and retail under the structure idea is better suited to the rail area under the Union rail platforms, and further a sublevel under the street could increase pedestrian flow.
For the Gardiner I still say it is a needed structure and we should bury it in the central area. Sure it would be expensive but it would have been a massive 'make work' project during the recession. I think the city should have done anything, issue bonds etc to fund it.
For the Gardiner I still say it is a needed structure and we should bury it in the central area. Sure it would be expensive but it would have been a massive 'make work' project during the recession. I think the city should have done anything, issue bonds etc to fund it.
Mapleson
Active Member
When you suggest "burying it" are you suggesting we build a new subgrade level to the Gardiner (in theory reducing peak congestion somewhat) or that we spend billions of dollars to tear down and rebuild the Gardiner underground? Infrastructure has a time and a place when to be removed. I'd generally place it when it's unservicable or alternative demands exceed the current usage level.
The "stimulus" spending went into buying votes by rushing design/construction of a number of questionable projects. To receive Federal funding, projects had to be completed by March 31, 2011, so there was less than a snowball's chance in hell that it'd have passed. Beyond that, it's a lose-lose proposition to drivers and transit users with no significant gain. Then again, you can say that for most of the stimulus funding.
The "stimulus" spending went into buying votes by rushing design/construction of a number of questionable projects. To receive Federal funding, projects had to be completed by March 31, 2011, so there was less than a snowball's chance in hell that it'd have passed. Beyond that, it's a lose-lose proposition to drivers and transit users with no significant gain. Then again, you can say that for most of the stimulus funding.
- Status