Roads: Keep the Gardiner, fix it, or get rid of it? (2005-2014)

[innsertnamehere]

the Newark Air rail link was $15 last time I was there, this summer. That is a price I think the ARL should aim to be the upper ceiling.

 

[LNahid2000]

Are you talking about the Amtrak train with the connection via that monorail people mover? "Fast" is a deception only. GO trains have a higher average speed.

Average speed is 55km/h (25 minutes to go 22.5km). GO trains don't seem to be much faster than that.

 

[nfitz]

It's not a strange spin. Diesel trains mean pollution to varying degrees depending on how much service is provided; electric trains mean potentially no pollution at any service level.

Electric means no pollutions? Just where do you think the electricity comes from? Did you see the twin exhaust plumes coming out of the natural gas generators at OPG's Portlands Energy Centre on Unwin Avenue the other day when it was so cold (creating these tall vertical plumes, that just hung in the air)?

Not sure why it's okay to pollute my neighbourhood so those in Weston can have a bit less polution along their train lines.

I'm not saying this isn't he solution ... but there's still going to be some pollution.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the April 10 Public Works and Infrastructure Committee:

Gardiner rehab - http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-57200.pdf
Gardiner Lakeshore EA -http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/pw/bgrd/backgroundfile-57202.pdf

AoD

 

[Electrify]

Can't remember if I mentioned this here, but while a little south, replace the Gardiner viaduct with a Downtown Relief Line viaduct. Depending on the amount of space, it could operate above the median meaning little obstruction of sunlight to those below, and continue to provide a fantastic view of Toronto's skyline. Only now to more than just drivers.

 

[SunriseChampion]

I humbly volunteer to tear it down myself.

I hate the bloody thing and think it's a huge detriment to our city. I also think the never-ending debate on its future is nauseating. Bloody well kill it already. It's outdated, outmoded, ugly, detrimental, psychologically jarring, and its upkeep is a WASTE of money. Drivers want to keep it? Alright, cough up a user toll. No? Didn't think so.
(I drive the raised portion of the Gardiner at least 6-10 times a month and would be willing to pay a toll but would prefer it if it would just die already)

 

[innsertnamehere]

I actually like the gardiner. I find it isn't THAT bad at street level, and could be improved dramatically if some proper lighting was installed underneath of it. Meanwhile, it is the Cities only highway to the downtown core (something that I think all cities should have, but not much more than 1 or 2), and is increasingly providing an epic drive.. I get the feeling that driving the gardiner through downtown will become quite an impressive thing in the near future. I prefer a slightly ugly concrete thing over my head to huge amounts of cars honking and spewing fumes right in my face, so maybe the only thing that really needs to be downsized is the lakeshore. If that is reduced in size, the gardiner will become quite tolerable.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

and is increasingly providing an epic drive.. I get the feeling that driving the gardiner through downtown will become quite an impressive thing in the near future. I prefer a slightly ugly concrete thing over my head to huge amounts of cars honking and spewing fumes right in my face, so maybe the only thing that really needs to be downsized is the lakeshore. If that is reduced in size, the gardiner will become quite tolerable.

Do you know what would provide an even more epic view? A nice park where the Gardiner used to be. Imagine for a moment walking down the former expressway admiring the our growing skyline. Perhaps it would be so nice that you'd stay and have a picnic. And imagine the amazing photography opportunities.

Here's to letting the Gardiner crumble apart, piece by piece .

 

[bleu]

Do you know what would provide an even more epic view? A nice park where the Gardiner used to be. Imagine for a moment walking down the former expressway admiring the our growing skyline. Perhaps it would be so nice that you'd stay and have a picnic. And imagine the amazing photography opportunities.

Here's to letting the Gardiner crumble apart, piece by piece .

don't kid ourselves. Even if the damn thing came down, it won't be used as any public space. It will be condos.

Compared to other beautiful cities, Toronto IMO is extremely utilitarian. We never strive to make the city more beautiful, more enjoyable by providing art, sculptures, squares etc; instead it is all residential housing and offices.

NYC has central park, Boston has Boston Commons, Chicago has MP. We have ... Dundas Square (please don't mention High Park, which is more like a large suburban dog park than an urban and sophisticated green space). We are a city where the existence of a sugar refinery sitting just by the lake downtown is considered normal and acceptable. We are a city where the waterfront is dominated by condos after condos, instead of any real world class public space and facilities. After central waterfront is completely ruined, the east bay front after being ignored for decades, now is occupied by condos and office and university buildings, or so called "neighbourhood" - not that there is anything wrong with them, but why the hell do they have to be on the prime waterfront??

Toronto will always be a utilitarian city. I don't hate it but it disappoints me in its utter failure even trying to be something great.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Not that it has anything to do with the topic at hand (which is the Gardiner, and the public space argument is quite frankly up for debate given the length of the expressway - not all locations it occupies is suitable for use as open space), but you have neglected to mention Allan Gardens, which even in its' degraded state suggests your interpretation is somewhat revisions. Ditto Queen's Park.

As to location decisions of "world class facilities" - some of the other cities chose to put them nearby the waterfront for whatever reasons, we didn't - nothing wrong with that. And besides, if neighbourhoods (with judicious public spaces, e.g. Sugar Beach, Sherbourne Commons, etc) are what's needed to get people to use the waterfront, what's wrong with that? Amsterdam did it - are they any less "world class" by this measure?

AoD

 

[bleu]

My bad.

Allen Garden is roughly 300M X 240M = 72,000 sq m
Queens Park from the map is of similar size, or a bit bigger if including nearby greenspace

Central Park: 3,400,000 sq m
Grant Park: 1,290,000 sq m
Boston Common: 50 acre, or 202,000 sq m

Combine Allen Garden, Queens Park, along with St James Park, Moss Park and Grange Park, and it is probably similar to Boston Common, or a fraction of Central Park/Grant Park. And Boston is a much smaller city.

Yes, Toronto does have its ravines etc (people will definitely bring it up), but one, those are not man made urban park, and two, I for one am unwilling to take a subway plus 30 minutes bus just to visit them.

I am not saying Toronto lacks green space, but it does lack large well maintained urban parks with easy access. If the Gardiner did come down, there is zero chance a large park will be created, because this is simply not how Toronto thinks/works. It will always be residential/commercial.

Sherbourne Commons and Sugar beach are nice efforts. But let's face it, both are miniscule, not big enough for one to walk for 5 minutes. Toronto needs a park what extends from Yonge to Parliament covering the entire area south of the Gardiner. But we all know it will be buildings or so called "neighbourhoods".

In downtown, we have quite a few "parkettes", not even one decent sized park where you can stand at one end without seeing the other. This is why I don't care about the fate of 11 Wellesday. Even if it miraculously becomes a park, it is just another tiny one where people walk their dogs. More than likely it will be condos plus some tiny green space for a 3 minutes walk.

 

[nfitz]

In downtown, we have quite a few "parkettes", not even one decent sized park where you can stand at one end without seeing the other.

Toronto Islands.

And of course High Park, but you've managed to eliminate that in some bizarre baseless justification.

 

[bleu]

Toronto Islands.

And of course High Park, but you've managed to eliminate that in some bizarre baseless justification.

I don't mean to be picky, but pay $7 everytime to see a park? It is usually not how most parks work IMO. The islands are great though. But still access is awkward. You have to take the subway, then a streetcar, then a ferry... I have never seem such complicated routes.

High Park is so far away from the city centre. My exclusion is not bizzarre at all. It is more like a sububan park. I wish High Park and UofT could swap location.

 

[nfitz]

I don't mean to be picky, but pay $7 everytime to see a park? It is usually not how most parks work IMO. The islands are great though. But still access is awkward. You have to take the subway, then a streetcar, then a ferry... I have never seem such complicated routes.

Who is going to ever take the streetcar one stop instead of just walking to Union subway station?

Besides, wouldn't many just walk to the ferry terminal from where they live?

High Park is so far away from the city centre.

Oh my ... a 13-minute subway ride from Yonge station ... so far.

There's also Riverdale Park East and West (though it would have been a far nice place if some motherForder hadn't let them put two expressways through the middle of it). And standing in the middle of Garrison Common, it seems quite large. As does Trinity-Bellwoods.

I really don't understand this need - an almost pathological one - to find such fault in everything. Quite frankly, I've found Manhattan quite parkless in comparison with Toronto. Sure, they've got Central Park - but if your not near it, and you just want a 5-minute walk to find some greenspace - your not going to have an easy time of it. Though the High Line is certainly an improvement!

 

[PB1]

I don't mean to be picky, but pay $7 everytime to see a park? It is usually not how most parks work IMO. The islands are great though. But still access is awkward. You have to take the subway, then a streetcar, then a ferry... I have never seem such complicated routes.

High Park is so far away from the city centre. My exclusion is not bizzarre at all. It is more like a sububan park. I wish High Park and UofT could swap location.

The distance between downtown Manhattan and central park is about the same as that of downtown Toronto and highpark... makes you realize how big and dense Manhattan is