Toronto Lower Don Lands Redevelopment | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

^Obviously it has value, just as sandboxes do for children. It's like sidewalk patios with roaring traffic going by. For some, it serves their need.

I'm more of a Jane Jacobs kind of person...
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
And yet, it is rather popular as a public space even without access to water, which would be a nice add on, but not essential to the enjoyment of a space. Just because you don't see the value doesn't mean it doesn't have it.

AoD
Click to expand...

To be fair, I love Sugar Beach, however, after sitting in one of those chairs or on a blanket 'pon the sand for a while in the sun....well, you can guess that I wish I could go for a dip. I mean, technically, I could as I am fit enough to be able to extract myself after a cool down, but as one of my good friends says, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

In fact, I find Sugar Beach to be a bit of a mind-fu**: oh, here, have some beach....go on, cook up in the sun....oh, no...no water for you. I love it, but I feel like it's messing with me.
 
steveintoronto said:
^Obviously it has value, just as sandboxes do for children. It's like sidewalk patios with roaring traffic going by. For some, it serves their need.

I'm more of a Jane Jacobs kind of person...
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your expectations of development on the inner harbour. If left to nature the inner harbour would be similar to Cootes Paradise in Hamilton. A shallow bog, with silty soil from the Don River and full of good things like bulrushes, mollusks and leaches. It would not be an area for swimmers.

I had the opportunity to swim in the water near Ontario Place last summer for a triathlon. To prepare for the event, organizers had to power wash the natural occurring algae that grows on the ledge beside the water. If not done, entry into the water would have been a slippery mess. While lovely in concept, your proposal for swimming along the inner harbour is impractical.

We are fortunate to have beaches along many parts of the waterfront. The fact that we don't have beaches at the foot of Yonge nor along the inner harbour is not a design or planning flaw. The inner harbour is not the "natural" place for a beach.
 
steveintoronto said:
^Obviously it has value, just as sandboxes do for children. It's like sidewalk patios with roaring traffic going by. For some, it serves their need.

I'm more of a Jane Jacobs kind of person...
Click to expand...

The things I love are rarefied and pure, while the things other people love are for foolish children and Philistines.
 
MTown said:
To be fair, I love Sugar Beach, however, after sitting in one of those chairs or on a blanket 'pon the sand for a while in the sun....well, you can guess that I wish I could go for a dip. I mean, technically, I could as I am fit enough to be able to extract myself after a cool down, but as one of my good friends says, "Just because you can doesn't mean you should."

In fact, I find Sugar Beach to be a bit of a mind-fu**: oh, here, have some beach....go on, cook up in the sun....oh, no...no water for you. I love it, but I feel like it's messing with me.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't with the designers or WT - but city and port authority being risk adverse with public access to the water. Same problem at HtO park.

AoD
 
No, WT has done good work here. I suppose one can't blame the PA and city for being too risk adverse given that in our society taking personal responsibility for one's actions is a bit of a dying art.
 
MTown said:
No, WT has done good work here. I suppose one can't blame the PA and city for being too risk adverse given that in our society taking personal responsibility for one's actions is a bit of a dying art.
Click to expand...

Nothing like encouraging our society to take personal responsibilities more seriously with a bit of dying as an art.

AoD
 
jaybe said:
While lovely in concept, your proposal for swimming along the inner harbour is impractical.
Click to expand...
And where exactly did I propose "swimming" other than for the dog to get in the water, get thoroughly soaked, and continue on our way? Oddly, I had the impression that the likes of Waterfront Toronto and the City were trying to encourage pedestrianism and connecting with the water.

But since you're here, what's the problem with providing a canoe or boat launch slip into the water every kilometer or so on *OUR* harbour? Whose is it anyway?
 
Last edited:
I know Sugar Beach doesn't have a splash pad, but doesn't it have water spouts? I do agree that the waterfront trail(s) could do with more water access (in some form or another).
 
tripwire said:
I know Sugar Beach doesn't have a splash pad, but doesn't it have water spouts? I do agree that the waterfront trail(s) could do with more water access (in some form or another).
Click to expand...
A very reasoned reply. They might have water spouts, there are a number of playgrounds too that have them along the stretch from Parliament to Strachan, but dogs are not allowed.

If I were the exception to the norm in downtown living, I could see my point being superfluous, but finding *wetting pools* for dogs downtown, and across much of the waterfront is difficult. I've looked for maps, done exploring cycling, and asked around. It's a known and real problem. And there are more dogs in the core now than children.

There's also the safety factor of having a ramp into the water at least every kilometer, doesn't have to be big, but if anyone knows how a floundering swimmer or person distressed in the water reacts, often the last thing they can do is climb a ladder, let alone a concrete monolith demarking the edge of water.

In the event, I do use Ontario Place for the last 'dunking' for Rover westbound on distance walks, in a slimy lagoon next to where the rides used to be, and then we exit onto the mainland on the most westerly bridge. From there to Sunnyside, there's no safe and easy access to the water. And east of Ontario Place? At this moment, I can't think of anything until hiking down Cherry to the beach.
 
The Spit has the potential for some amazing beaches on the the southwestern shoreline. But I have no idea how much it would cost to transform 500m of partially eroded bricks and rebar into a proper swimming and sunbathing beach. Would be pretty cool though.
 
Irishmonk said:
The Spit has the potential for some amazing beaches on the the southwestern shoreline. But I have no idea how much it would cost to transform 500m of partially eroded bricks and rebar into a proper swimming and sunbathing beach. Would be pretty cool though.
Click to expand...
Except the beauty of the Spit is that it isn't 'neutered'. It's a wonderful example of how, given the chance, Nature can instill new beauty and order. Leaching from some of the material is an issue, however. A lot of the eroded edge should be capped with clay and/or sand to control the rate of leaching. On the other hand, without referencing ecological reports, some beneficial organisms might have a perfect home there. Unfortunately, even very well behaved pets aren't allowed there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top