News   Apr 23, 2024
Madison Resubmits Midtown Proposals with Viñoly-Designed Towers
 1.8K     5 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Avontuura's Wanderer Guides Designed For Architecture Buffs to Geek-out in Toronto, and Worldwide
 571     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Queen's Cross Food Hall Brings Global Flavours to Toronto Eaton Centre
 1.3K     0 

Toronto Expo 2025

old boy said:
Oops, I'm sorry to post the above in the Expo 2025 thread.
Click to expand...

It kind of says something when nobody on one of the most civic-minded boards around wants to bother discussing a dead-on-arrival mega bid.
 
Last edited:
animatronic said:
It kind of says something when nobody on one of the most civic-minded boards around wants to bother discussing a dead-on-arrival mega bid.
Click to expand...

Funny, I was about to mention the same thing. I think it speaks volumes to the general populace's level of interest if there's tumbleweeds blowing through this thread. Although a major part of that can be attributed to people's exhaustion/apathy over grand plans and general feeling of being tapped out, I think another major part can be attributed to how few Torontonians know about the area in question. How many go to the Port Lands, or have paid close attention to the revitalization plan? Perhaps not many.

Personally I'm on the fence, and can't tell whether my interest is in the Expo or the plans of the Expo. From what I've gleaned from the report I don't see much different from the preexisting Port Lands development, other than acceleration of build-out. Transportation-wise I don't like what I see. Anyone wanting to travel to the site would rely on the proposed RER and/or the proposed East Bayfront streetcar. The streetcar would more than likely be slow and at-capacity, and RER may very well end up as some relatively infrequent premium service.

higher-res image than ones used by media if anyone is interested:

The Case for Expo 2025 in Toronto-9.png
 

Attachments

  • The Case for Expo 2025 in Toronto-9.png
    The Case for Expo 2025 in Toronto-9.png
    952.6 KB · Views: 660
Last edited:
44 North said:
Funny, I was about to mention the same thing. I think it speaks volumes to the general populace's level of interest if there's tumbleweeds blowing through this thread. Although a major part of that can be attributed to people's exhaustion/apathy over grand plans and general feeling of being tapped out, I think another major part can be attributed to how few Torontonians know about the area in question. How many go to the Port Lands, or have paid close attention to the revitalization plan? Perhaps not many.

Personally I'm on the fence, and can't tell whether my interest is in the Expo or the plans of the Expo. From what I've gleaned from the report I don't see much different from the preexisting Port Lands development, other than acceleration of build-out. Transportation-wise I don't like what I see. Anyone wanting to travel to the site would rely on the proposed RER and/or the proposed East Bayfront streetcar. The streetcar would more than likely be slow and at-capacity, and RER may very well end up as some relatively infrequent premium service.
Click to expand...
As I see it, any benefits from the Expo are incidental at best and fraudulent at worst. Contrary to nostalgia, Expos are overwhelmingly targeted at local populations with very limited international exposure. The vast amount of effort, time, money spent on the event would distract from other civic priorities. Rather than being some sort of "accelerator" for civic growth, Expos and other mega-events are expensive detours.

As for public interest, the funny thing about mega-events is that their popularity drops the more people understand the scope and cost.
 
Sometimes I think when it comes to major issues like this it doesn't matter what the public thinks. Even if we held a series of referendums on an Expo - with all returning a resounding "NO!" - that behind closed doors the die has been cast and we'd still go full bore into bidding.

Still though even without an Expo I think the public would all be on board with putting in a major civic attraction into the Port Lands. We've already lost Ontario Place. I'd like something that's a mixture of Ontario Place, Science Centre, CN Tower, ROM, AGO - and designed with kids/families in mind. What that could be I have no idea.
 
MisterF said:
I don't know anything about TV ratings for the London games, but I'm sure it helps that every game gets 80,000+ fans. Much more enthusiastic reception than Toronto. The NFL is apparently planning to bring games back to Mexico City as well, which got similar crowds in the past.
Click to expand...

The TV thing for London is simple.......in an era where live TV (particularly sports) are advertisers dreams...and live sports properties are getting bid up higher and higher (heard one ad exec describe live sports as "nothing but a skud missile right at the pvr")....games in London/Europe create something of real value for the NFL....another live timeslot to sell.

If there was a game every week in London that took place at, say, 3 pm local time....that would be 10 a.m. on the East Coast of North America......how much would the US networks bid to be the broadcast network of that time slot? While all the other networks are re-running their Saturday night sports news cast...they would have a leg up on live NFL coverage! It may increase the value of UK rights to NFL too (just as a Toronto team would increase the Canadian rights fees) but the real value is creating that extra "live" time slot...something that no city in North America can do for the NFL.

Not sure why there is an NFL discussion in the Expo thread that I popped into just to see what people were saying....but once I saw it I thought I would respond.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
So the full court press is starting - nobody seems to be questioning the online survey they're quoting. 55% support is a pretty low start for something the public has likely never considered. As the Olympics shows, the more people learn the less they support it.
 
Several transit projects would be put on a higher priority.

1. Streetcar extensions, using right-of-ways, would be accelerated. The Queens Quay East right-of-way would actually be started. The Cherry Street streetcar would be extended southward. The Broadview streetcar would also be started.

transitnetwork.jpg


2. They may actually do something, anything, with enlarging or something with the Union Station streetcar loop.

unionloopdetailc.jpg


And actually have something by 2015 2025!

Getting the DRL probably would be a bit too big of a project to be put on a faster track, but we can always hope.
 
Last edited:
W. K. Lis said:
Several transit projects would be put on a higher priority.

1. Streetcar extensions, using right-of-ways, would be accelerated. The Queens Quay East right-of-way would actually be started. The Cherry Street streetcar would be extended southward. The Broadview streetcar would also be started.

2. They may actually do something, anything, with enlarging or something with the Union Station streetcar loop.

And actually have something by 2015!

Getting the DRL probably would be a bit too big of a project to be put on a faster track, but we can always hope.
Click to expand...

1. No chance of a DRL in the next decade

2. If these transit projects get accelerated, which ones get de-prioritized (it's a zero sum game)? Are the de-prioritized ones more important to residents?
 
im ok with deprioritizing scarborough extension for the DRL but I agree it wont be around in the next decade. Anyone who mangically thinks the DRL will be up by anytime sooner than 2030 is kidding themselves. Yes it could be done but politicians like to change plans or slowly finance projects so they take far longer than they should. Im guessing 2040 is the DRL after RER is proven 10000% will not make a huge difference.
 

Attachments

  • CvUG4b0W8AEyEnR.jpg
    CvUG4b0W8AEyEnR.jpg
    149.9 KB · Views: 472
That is a savage beatdown by the City professionals. Too bad they'll get overruled by a bunch of gormless councillors.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top