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

Northern Light said:
With respect, what gives you the right to determine the moral views or preferences of others. A lot of what you say comes off as "This is what i want therefore you should want it to, and anything else is ridiculous because I say so"

You would get more positive interaction if you expressed your preference for what it is, a preference, your indifference for what it is, yours

For many people there is a key idea here, which is should a private company profit off of public property, at-scale. (one must recognize that there is always some profit/private involvement, in government, unavoidably so, irrespective of one's politics); but there is a difference between leasing some space to restaurant/concessions operators, and turning over a very large chunk of the actual property to a private interest.

Its fine that it doesn't bother you, that that is not a principle that concerns you, but it does concern others.

This was an 'attraction' built for the people; and if it made any profit (which usually it did not) that went back to the people. This will not be the case with Therme, whose proposal is not viable without some measure of public subsidy, the amount of which we do not know due to government secrecy.



I'm not sure I accept any of the above, as your stated views seem inconsistent with it. Let me try this....."We have to accept the government leasing public land to private schools that charge tuition, and even subsidizing their construction costs, even when they are for-profit operators; sure, I'm socialist and favour public schools and free tuition for them, but that's just not the world we live in" Are you signing on? If not, you understand why people have a problem with a view that advocates 'setting' for less than what we had in 1975.



Says Who? Again. This is not a venue or service that appeals to me; and I could actually afford to go. What of all the people who cannot?, but whose taxes will subsidize this operation?
Click to expand...
It comes off that way, because I see this for what it actually is, Opposition to P3 partnerships. Which in my mind as stated above, isnt realistic in the world we live in.
Instead of coming out against the idea of P3's as a whole for some reason people are focusing specifically on this one project here.

With that said, There are a few groups here who all all saying different things.
1. There are those who want this to be a park and only a park
2. There are those who think a spa is inappropriate
3. There are those who think it's a bad idea to let the private company build on public land..

Those in the 1st group, I personally disagree with with reasons mentioned before.
Those in the 2nd group, I've yet to hear any ideas as to what they think should be there instead
Those in the 3rd group, I think most people fundamentally misunderstand the point in p3's

I say most, because some, like you correctly understand there there must be a small amount of partnership with private industry.
It seems to be, that alot of people are arguing for 0 private involvement whatsoever

for example, if this was a government-built, Government paid for then privately run facility with something akin to transit with operator companies taking a cut. I think the same arguments would crop up. "why are we spending 600 million for a parking lot for private profit". Remember, I said it would be awesome if Governments could do everything themselves, but again not realistic

Instead of going the school route debate, Which i do agree should never be privatized, Private schools should be banned, tuition should always be free even in college/university
Ill go a different route
Hypothetical question, What if...hear me out here please.


What if the 407's contract lease language from 1990 something actually HAD pricing enforcement or even terms that ontario drivers could agree with?
Was it always going to be hated even if the tolls were like $0.02 per km permanently?

In my opinion 407 just loves price gouging to make billions. Take away their insane profit by putting language in the contract and aside from increased traffic, Would People actually be okay with that sale in 1997
20/20 hindsight aside where it was rush sold during an election and those terms couldnt be ironed out....BUT what if?


The point is, 407 has always been the posterchild for selling of public assets right? But is there a right way?

And yea, I see where the school thing is coming from, id say sure, if that hypothetical was real, Id heavily oppose that. But thats not whats happening here, Theres similar ideas, But I dont think that comparison is fair. Schools should never be privatized EVER

The idea that ANY PUBLIC LAND should neither be sold nor leased is either naive or just not realistic in todays age. Metrolinx does it all the time, with TOD's and air rights. Some public agencies do it all the time for unused office space (you probably know more than me about this but it does happen doesnt it?)

to close off my essay, I too probably wont visit it, Hell i havent been to canadas wonderland in 10 years, but the walking trails and beaches, Id still be walking them years from now if im still in the fort york area. When I walk by it, im always reminded of my childhood where a (to 10-year old me) great place to be was.
 
I don't think the real objection here, from most people is with any private use on the land. At least not me. As I said before, we already pay to go to concerts there, for example. And if I go to see a movie at the Cinesphere, it doesn't much matter to me whether that money is going to the Province or if it's been leased to Cineplex to operate.

But this is a large-scale ceding of land to the private enterprise. It's not like letting some prviate company operate a rope-climbing course in a Provincial park. It's like letting Hilton throw up a 20-storey tower at the gates of Algonquin Park. Not only is it a private intrusion, it is one that permanently alters the landscape. And if that hypothetical Hilton also required Ontario residents to foot the bill for parking lots and other enabling infrastructure, that would be even worse, especially if taxpayers were given no clue whatsoever what Hilton was paying or giving back.

I have concerns about what moving the Scence Centre will mean for its current site but, all things being equal, that is at least a use that makes sense here. But for Ripley's maybe an aquarium would too. So help me, even a ferris wheel isn't a bad idea! And if we needed Ripley's to open the aquarium or, I dunno, Konklin to operate the ferris wheel, I have no problem with that.

There are all sorts of complimentary uses that would leave the park's raison d'etre, as a family-oriented showcase for the Province - and it is effectively a Provincial park - intact. It's hard to see this as anything less than the Province leveraging an investment on valuable land they own, especially when you look at the Science Centre scenarios. It might be good for patching holes in the budget but it's lacking in the sort of vision that allowed the government - a PC government, by the way - that created both these places in the first places.
 
If I remember correctly, this is a long-term lease, not a sale of land to Therme - for the express purposes of operating a spa. The fine print matters (if we can see them, har har), but AFAIK this isn't a carte blanche. Not to say you can't get shenanigans (just think the SkyDome redevelopment business) - but there is nothing particular novel about leasing public land to private interests.

The issue here to me is a) the amount of public money that will be spent on a supposedly mixed used parking facility; b) relative to the amount of money that will be spent on actually public space/facilities; c) the poor integration of OP and Ex - especially in the context of the latter being a key element of access by transit and d) identification and preservation of meaningful heritage elements of OP.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Yes, t his is why it was funny that on the previous page the one dude said he thinks Ontarians are getting a good deal out of this.
We have no idea what the deal is. It's likely a 99-year lease but maybe not. And for how much? There's a decent chance we will never know. Maybe the next government will shame them by releasing stuff but otherwise, we're not likely to see the actual print, much less the fine print and that's as much an issue as anything else.
 
Don’t know if this has been posted, but it should make for a very lively public meeting.
Please report back if any of you are planning to attend.

9D31C0E5-1A36-47D8-96CC-3149431DADAD.jpeg
 
TJ O'Pootertoot said:
Yes, t his is why it was funny that on the previous page the one dude said he thinks Ontarians are getting a good deal out of this.
We have no idea what the deal is. It's likely a 99-year lease but maybe not. And for how much? There's a decent chance we will never know. Maybe the next government will shame them by releasing stuff but otherwise, we're not likely to see the actual print, much less the fine print and that's as much an issue as anything else.
Click to expand...
"the one dude" was me. dude

This is why
The province is still in ongoing negotiations with other potential tenants, limiting Therme's ability to be more transparent about the specifics of the lease, according to Bredin.

"I think to talk about that in more detail would undermine (the provincial government's) ability to negotiate. But again, it's a multi-year lease," he told CBC Radio's Metro Morning.
Click to expand...

If the government came out and said "therme has a 20 year lease of the land, and they pay us 20 million per year for leasing it". Another company can outdo them. This is how commercial negotiations work. Theese things need to stay private, Thats the point of the P3 program.

I do wonder if the government can find someone to run the moved publicly owned Ontario science center. That'd be something id be interested in. As I said before, up until this news came out I never heard anyone suggest an alternative to a waterpark. This is a good alternative

It would be expensive, we may have to pay for the public realm improvements, but it could work
 
generalcanada said:
when i hear the exact same arguments get used by nimby's who are opposed to housing, transit and any kind of infrastructure even bike lanes, they all sound the same to me.
To me, When that phrase is used I automatically assume theyre a nimby whose opinions should be discounted, especially so for housing developments
Click to expand...
Housing and transit projects have an immediate, fundamental, and material impact on peoples lives. Either lifting them from poverty, getting them off the streets or allowing them to travel to a job or family. The spa is essentially meaningless in this context. If it wont ruin someones life if it doesn't get built. People are more than welcome to debate the best use of public space. In this case it probably makes public space worse for the majority of end users. If they put it in the parking lot across Lake Shore or in rexdale, my conclusion might be different, but this is ultimately a poor use of resources.
 
generalcanada said:
This is why

If the government came out and said "therme has a 20 year lease of the land, and they pay us 20 million per year for leasing it". Another company can outdo them. This is how commercial negotiations work. Theese things need to stay private, Thats the point of the P3 program.
Click to expand...
Yeah, thanks for explaining P3s. The commercial negotiations are a legit issue but they are also a very convenient excuse for burying details the public wouldn't want to see. We do know Therme is not paying for their own (insanely scaled) parking lot or the land rehab costs. It says it right there in the article you've provided - $650M of our money to "upgrade existing infrastructure and preserve heritage elements of the site."

Personally, that makes me wonder what the heck they're bringing to the table - maybe it's billions! maybe it's $250M! maybe it's Blue Jays seasons tickets?! - but for you apparently, "we'd like to tell you but we can't" is reassuring and sufficient. A bit weird but that's your perogative. I see zero reason to give them benefit of the doubt based on the available information.

(And as for the Science Centre, they don't need anyone private to run it. Their ideal is probably to keep it as a "public use' loss leader so they can have people like you remind us on boards like these that the site wasn't just handed over to Therme; "don't forget the publicly owned Science Centre is there now! And they added some amazing landfill!" In the meantime, they'll privatize the current Ontario Science Centre site, selling it off to developers and when they say they can't tell taxpayers what kind of deal they got there either you'll say, "I totally understand. Great deal, probably!")
 
Last edited:
Towered said:
Perhaps the OSC building could be repurposed to be a museum of nature.
Click to expand...

That wouldn't be a bad idea at all- considering ROM still have so many artifacts that are in storage for the lack of display space, and that it is fairly standard practice to have a standalone museum of nature, and a ravine site with a wetland is ripe for opportunities. So if we streamline it - ROM on Bloor would be solely for History/Cultural artifacts; the old OSC would be a Museum of Nature (include mineralogy and astronomy); and the new OSC at OP would cover Science/Tech. Not a bad mix.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
That wouldn't be a bad idea at all- considering ROM still have so many artifacts that are in storage for the lack of display space, and that it is fairly standard practice to have a standalone museum of nature, and a ravine site with a wetland is ripe for opportunities. So if we streamline it - ROM on Bloor would be solely for History/Cultural artifacts; the old OSC would be a Museum of Nature (include mineralogy and astronomy); and the new OSC at OP would cover Science/Tech. Not a bad mix.

AoD
Click to expand...
I really love this idea - which means it'll never be considered 🤣
 
Keep the Science Centre where it is. It serves the community in important ways, it's a great building and it would be a waste of money to move it.

And yes, we can easily turn the pods at Ontario Place into branches of the ROM and AGO. One pod with butterflies. Another with modern art or the Group of Seven. Bring it on.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top