Toronto Ontario Place | ?m | ?s | Infrastructure ON

innsertnamehere said:
Thanks. Old satellite images confirm that all accesses were gated.

I get some here seem to want it to be a park, but I just think that's a massive waste of land. The area is relatively isolated and very, very large. A park would likely be lighlty used given the lack of local population, and would do nothing to add to the city's entertainment options which was the original intent of Ontario Place.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that given how secluded the area is. One can only imagine was seediness would take place in a park that close to the lake with no supervision. I (and I imagine many others) would not go there past sunset if it was a park and only a park.
 
Richard White said:
Not to mention that given how secluded the area is. One can only imagine was seediness would take place in a park that close to the lake with no supervision. I (and I imagine many others) would not go there past sunset if it was a park and only a park.
Click to expand...

Really?

Have you ever looked at @kotsy 's photos.........?

He doesn't seem to be afraid of Ontario Place after dark.

Neither am I.
 
Richard White said:
Easy big fella!!!

I was thinking more along the lines if all the buildings were gone.
Click to expand...

LOL, that wasn't ferocious attack mode............ just mild exasperation.

****

I would oppose removing Cinesphere and the Pods, and of course the space needs washrooms and concessions/restos amongst other things.

But that can be in service of a very park-like setting.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I mean what do you do if not this again? You can't just leave it as a park, you have to restore its entertainment function. Building a theme park more closely aligned to the original function is sort of pointless as that's why it closed in the first place, Wonderland pulled demand away.

Again, the indoor waterpark is something fairly creative that is missing from the Toronto entertainment market today, that can build on the waterfront location thematically, and offers a significant new entertainment venue. What else should it be?
Click to expand...

Echoing what Northern Light stated:

There’s a huge waterpark and theme park an hour north of the city. We also have Great Wolf Lodge, which is not "creative" entertainment.

Volleyball, basketball, and tennis courts, boardwalks that interact with the water, concession stands, gardens, lounging spaces, interactive art features, an outdoor theatre, a grass field - just some ideas off the top of my head that don’t require designating large portions of waterfront real estate for monetization.

I'm not completely against some sort of large entertainment space, but why are they proposing giant energy consuming greenhouse spas on the waterfront during a climate crisis in an effort to revitalize these lands?
 
Northern Light said:
Your flippant attitude towards the environment is consistent w/your pro-highway and pro-sprawl views.
Its not a couple of trees. It is, quite literally, with no exaggeration well over 250 mature trees, you can compare the renders and footprints and then look at the aerial photos.
Accuracy is a thing to which you do not adhere as often as you ought.



You could, actually, but it would not be my suggestion to do that with the entire site.



While I support the space including an entertainment function I disagreed with the characterization 'have to'.



The outdoor theme park was a central feature of Ontario Place; an indoor theme park never was........
Wonderland pulled demand away because it was something Ontario Place never could be; because the CNE got no investment in its permanent rides either, and because said permanent rides (ie. The Flyer etc.) were closed all year except during the 3-week CNE.

Let Wonderland be Wonderland.
Let people who want to spent time at indoor-amusement parks leave Toronto and go to places that appreciate tacky, like, Edmonton or something.



Great Wolf Lodge on steroids is not creative.



So is an 800-store mall and a 2-storey indoor driving range..............somehow I don't feel the loss.



The list of potential options is un-ending.

Many here, myself included liked the idea of moving the Ontario Science Centre down to to the Pods and possibly adding on to the complex for that purpose as well.
Much better location that it has today.
While we're relocating things...........Toronto Botanical Garden could shift here, for all the effort put into plans at the existing site, its very constrained. A mixture of 'natural' areas and formal gardens could occupy a large portion of the site.
A full-sized beach makes enormous sense.
So does optimizing passive recreation (paddle boats, row boats, canoes, kayaks, wind-surfing, picnics, walking and cycling space etc.
There's certainly room to retain a concert space, maybe even 2.
I have no objection whatever to restaurants and nightclubs occupying those zones at OP that were intended for same, updated for today's market.
If we were to see any 'theme park' functions, I'd rather go after the original ideas with an outdoor waterpark, simply one that was modern and up-to-date, and that could be a paid area.
A destination, adventure playground for kids works too.
There are myriad further options.
Click to expand...

Of that list, paddle boat, canoe, and kayak rentals are happening, as is the concert space, as is the beach space. As is the adventure playground. This is a big site.

The science centre needs money but it can stay in place, shifting it here would replace an indoor waterpark, which you are complaining about because of its insular nature, with another use that barely even has windows and is very much insular. I don't see the value in moving it over giving it a new facility at its current location. Therme at least has opportunities to provide both indoor and outdoor facilities. It also isn't exactly an indoor waterpark in a traditional sense, it integrates spa elements and makes it a more mature, modern concept.

The botanical garden is an interesting concept, and I don't hate it, but I don't see how it's an inherently better concept than Therme. I also don't see it being nearly as large of a draw, and it would result in the area being very quiet for 6 months of the year.

Regarding the indoor water park idea - how is it really fundamentally different than the original Ontario Place? The whole park was built on the idea of family fun and entertainment - something a waterpark does similarly, and something which is oddly missing from the GTA.

I don't appreciate calling my attitude regarding the environment as "flippant" - but a small bush of 40 year old trees isn't worth derailing a massive project over. Sorry. I don't think saying that makes me an environmental pariah. And no, it's not some massive wooded area, it's a relatively small area on the west island that is spread around the existing park structures. Half the trees will probably be lost in the demolition work alone.
 
Last edited:
bjrkz said:
Echoing what Northern Light stated:

There’s a huge waterpark and theme park an hour north of the city. We also have Great Wolf Lodge, which is not "creative" entertainment.

Volleyball, basketball, and tennis courts, boardwalks that interact with the water, concession stands, gardens, lounging spaces, interactive art features, an outdoor theatre, a grass field - just some ideas off the top of my head that don’t require designating large portions of waterfront real estate for monetization.

I'm not completely against some sort of large entertainment space, but why are they proposing giant energy consuming greenhouse spas on the waterfront during a climate crisis in an effort to revitalize these lands?
Click to expand...
None of those uses are going to be regional draws, and most are already in relative abundance in the area. This area isn't lacking in park space. Concession stands won't work without a larger draw. A grass field - really? That's a productive use?

That doesn't sound like a good use, it sounds like a government that has given up on the original intent of Ontario Place and just wants to be rid of it.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Could they add lockers to Ontario Place? Somewhere we can store our swimming stuff after the waterpark, and before the movie in the Cinesphere. Especially, those who did not come by car (where we store some items in the trunk).
Click to expand...

IIRC they had them at one point. Alot of public places are getting rid of them for security reasons.
 
innsertnamehere said:
None of those uses are going to be regional draws, and most are already in relative abundance in the area. This area isn't lacking in park space. Concession stands won't work without a larger draw. A grass field - really? That's a productive use?

That doesn't sound like a good use, it sounds like a government that has given up on the original intent of Ontario Place and just wants to be rid of it.
Click to expand...

Aside from the fact I don't agree w/your premise that these lands must be tourist-centric on a grand-scale...............
I would also add, I don't see adding a waterpark/spa which is conceptually similar to a dozen more around the world as a particularly useful feature if that was your goal.

Tell me how many times you flown to Munich to enjoy the Therme location there? Bucharest? Manchester?
Right, lets be honest, you didn't even know any of those existed.
No one in France will know that about the Toronto one either, and if they did, they aren't flying to Toronto when they have one a few hours drive away in Europe.

People don't travel large distances, in large numbers, to go to indoor water parks.

They rarely do so for any one 'attraction', even one of which I might be fond. Sure there are the Disney World's that are exceptions.........but they are just that; and this is not Disney World.

But in general people go to other cities to escape their daily lives and experience something different from home.

Sure, while there, its nice to have a wide range of things to do; and stuff for the kids.

But this is not my idea of a major selling feature.

Moreover, I'm tired of seeing what I view as grift when public assets are turned over to the private sector to operate.
 
Last edited:
I've reflected on the plans. We definitely dodged a bullet, especially with Ford's hands all over this. The Cinesphere and pods were saved, and there will be some public (non-ticketed) space. Oh, and no casino!

My biggest concerns:
  1. The two new attractions - Therme Spa and outdoor playground - might be at a price point that is unattractive to the average family. How will they compare to Canada's Wonderland or other secondary competitors like Wet n' Wild (formerly Wild Water Kingdom)?
  2. Both attractions seem to treat Lake Ontario like an afterthought. I'd like to see more interaction with the water.
  3. The Cheapening™. I'd be stunned if Therme ends up with those panoramic glass buildings. I'm concerned we might get something looking more like a suburban rec centre
  4. As noted earlier, this is a very odd terminus for the Ontario Line, especially with all that parking.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Northern Light said:
Aside from the fact I don't agree w/your premise that these lands must be tourist-centric on a grand-scale...............
I would also add, I don't see adding a waterpark/spa which is conceptually similar to a dozen more around the world as a particularly useful feature if that was your goal.

Tell me how many times you flown to Munich to enjoy the Therme location there? Bucharest? Manchester?
Right, lets be honest, you didn't even know any of those existed.
No one in France will know that about the Toronto one either, and if they did, they aren't flying to Toronto when they have one a few hours drive away in Europe.

People don't travel large distances, in large numbers, to go to indoor water parks.

They rarely do so for any one 'attraction', even one of which I might be fond. Sure there are the Disney World's that are exceptions.........but they are just that; and this is not Disney World.

But in general people go to other cities to escape their daily lives and experience something different from home.

Sure, while there, its nice to have a wide range of things to do; and stuff for the kids.

But this is not my idea of a major selling feature.

Moreover, I'm tired of seeing what I view as grift when public assets are turned over to the private sector to operate.
Click to expand...
I didn't say it would be an international tourist draw - I said a regional draw. It may not draw someone from London, England, but it certainly might from London, Ontario.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I didn't say it would be an international tourist draw - I said a regional draw. It may not draw someone from London, England, but it certainly might from London, Ontario.
Click to expand...
I also think it'll be a major draw for people and families from Toronto, Ontario who don't have the privilege to go on a tropical vacation every year.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top