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

[picard102]

...and that question sure seems to come with the gaslight dialed up on high. Do I need to really answer that?

You don't really. As everyone should know that Ontario Place was accessible by admission only for the vast majority of its operation, and further heavily subsidised by the Ontario government to keep it, and it's commercial tenants, open.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

You don't really. As everyone should know that Ontario Place was accessible by admission only for the vast majority of its operation, and further heavily subsidised by the Ontario government to keep it, and it's commercial tenants, open.

This is a red herring, really. While some are, most people are not opposed to any kind of paid or private attraction. It's the specifics of this proposal, as detailed throughout, that are the issue.

Yes, Ontario Place had admission fees and waterslides and a flume ride but it was still a public facility with a specific mandate (which, to be fair, it only occasionally achieved). But so what?

If I go to Algonquin Provincial Park, I also have to pay an admission fee . Is that a reason to let Dave & Buster's build an outlet at the west gate, since "ordinary people" enjoy it etc.? Or isn't that obviously undercutting the whole point of the thing in the first place?

Like the Greenbelt talking point that the Liberals made 17 changes themselves, it's a disengenuous distraction from the actual issues and only plays with people who don't understand the breadth of what is actually transpiring here.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

You don't really. As everyone should know that Ontario Place was accessible by admission only for the vast majority of its operation, and further heavily subsidised by the Ontario government to keep it, and it's commercial tenants, open.

Yes, so? It's still public lands though.

 

[picard102]

Yes, so? It's still public lands though.

And it still will be.

 

[picard102]

If I go to Algonquin Provincial Park, I also have to pay an admission fee . Is that a reason to let Dave & Buster's build an outlet at the west gate, since "ordinary people" enjoy it etc.? Or isn't that obviously undercutting the whole point of the thing in the first place?

A more apt comparison would be if they built another park where the park was.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

A more apt comparison would be if they built another park where the park was.

No. A lot of Alqonquin Park would still be there, in my rather absurd hypothetical, but the land where Dave & Busters is would be a formerly public site that has been privatized.
But keep peddling whatever wares you've got, I guess. Maybe someone here or out there in the world will buy that what's actually happening is the Province transforming a private amusement park into a public beach, or whatever it is you imagine is happening.

 

[generalcanada]

Citation needed.

you really going to make me download the 100 page report again? naw. you do it yourself its all public. I thought urbantoronto loved reading reports and architectural designs
Therme isnt even half of the total parking demand thats what i remember, budweiser stage takes so many spaces.
If the government built an attraction themselves with the same visitor numbers then itd be considered a handout to livenation LOL

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

And yet Live Nation manages to operate its business presently, with the existing parking and no shiny, new, government-funded subway station across the street. Curious.

EDIT - just to add , this is the parking assessment from their submission:

 

[picard102]

But keep peddling whatever wares you've got, I guess. Maybe someone here or out there in the world will buy that what's actually happening is the Province transforming a private amusement park into a public beach, or whatever it is you imagine is happening.

The province is transforming a private amusement park (Ontario Place) into a private amusement park (Therme Group). That Ontario place was owned by the province doesn't mean it was publicly accessible in any materially different way than Therme will be.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

And it still will be.

Yeah, I am aware of that. Again, so what?

you really going to make me download the 100 page report again? naw. you do it yourself its all public.

I am not the one making the claims here though.

...but I'll save you some time instead. Because a certain group whose expertise consist of engineering parking lots, doesn't make parking lots a good idea or even acceptable. The appeal to authority doesn't cut it nor should it, as we should be discouraging car usage altogether. Full stop.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

The province is transforming a private amusement park (Ontario Place) into a private amusement park (Therme Group). That Ontario place was owned by the province doesn't mean it was publicly accessible in any materially different way than Therme will be.

First of all, you don't seem to grasp what private means in this context. One thing it doesn't mean is "owned and operated by a government," which Ontario Place has always been. Ergo, not private. If you really want to split hairs, the Province is merely leasing land to Therme for 99 years but for all intents and purposes, Therme is most definitely private. Whereas, to recap, Ontario Place is public.

Oh, but you're using "public" to refer to access rather than ownership? That makes no sense but OK. But tthen you're still wrong because it was publicly accessible then and will still be publicly accessible; you just have to pay. Whether the difference is "material," is perhaps the subjective crux here, but I don't really think so. If it were, we could start splitting hairs of how much it cost to get into Ontario Place vs how much it will cost to get into the "wellness centre," but that would bore both of us. (Not boring: you calling a "wellness centre" the architects tell us is a public good necessary for mental health and such a mere "amusement park.")

Now, it is true that for much of its existence, Ontario Place required paid admission. But not always. There were, for example, times where admission was free and you had to pay a la carte and there were times when you paid admission and everything inside was then "free." And of course it has been "free" since it closed and reopened in its current 'passive park' version. The fact that Ontario Place charged a fee and High Park does not, doesn't change the fact they are both public but anyway, I don't think we need a breakdown of all the various ticketing schemes they tried over the years in order to come up with some kind of number that quantifies Ontario Place's Material Privateness.

All that matters here, which is perhaps what you are missing, is the difference between the government operating a public facility -whether it's Algonquin Park, Ontario Place or the Ontario Science Centre - and the government selling/leasing a facility to a private, for-profit company to operate. I will give you benefit of the doubt that, despite your "argument," you are aware of the difference here, between for-profit private corporations and government agencies. It's a rather more important issue than whether the existence of an admission fee means there is a "material difference" in public access, which is meaningless and/or beside the point, really. It's either not understanding the issue or trying to change the subject and it won't accomplish anything.

 

[Natika33]

First of all, you don't seem to grasp what private means in this context. One thing it doesn't mean is "owned and operated by a government," which Ontario Place has always been. Ergo, not private. If you really want to split hairs, the Province is merely leasing land to Therme for 99 years but for all intents and purposes, Therme is most definitely private. Whereas, to recap, Ontario Place is public.

Oh, but you're using "public" to refer to access rather than ownership? That makes no sense but OK. But tthen you're still wrong because it was publicly accessible then and will still be publicly accessible; you just have to pay. Whether the difference is "material," is perhaps the subjective crux here, but I don't really think so. If it were, we could start splitting hairs of how much it cost to get into Ontario Place vs how much it will cost to get into the "wellness centre," but that would bore both of us. (Not boring: you calling a "wellness centre" the architects tell us is a public good necessary for mental health and such a mere "amusement park.")

Now, it is true that for much of its existence, Ontario Place required paid admission. But not always. There were, for example, times where admission was free and you had to pay a la carte and there were times when you paid admission and everything inside was then "free." And of course it has been "free" since it closed and reopened in its current 'passive park' version. The fact that Ontario Place charged a fee and High Park does not, doesn't change the fact they are both public but anyway, I don't think we need a breakdown of all the various ticketing schemes they tried over the years in order to come up with some kind of number that quantifies Ontario Place's Material Privateness.

All that matters here, which is perhaps what you are missing, is the difference between the government operating a public facility -whether it's Algonquin Park, Ontario Place or the Ontario Science Centre - and the government selling/leasing a facility to a private, for-profit company to operate. I will give you benefit of the doubt that, despite your "argument," you are aware of the difference here, between for-profit private corporations and government agencies. It's a rather more important issue than whether the existence of an admission fee means there is a "material difference" in public access, which is meaningless and/or beside the point, really. It's either not understanding the issue or trying to change the subject and it won't accomplish anything.

Your point is valid, but does it matter? If none of the provincial parties have shown an interest in spending money to maintain or run OP over many years, why would that change now? The private sector will have a greater vested interest in maintaining the area as they don't make money in any other way. The gov't won't have to figure out how to operate it and yet they'll get to collect rent. Realistically, what is everyone so scared is going to happen? That Therme will fail & then Dougie will suggest a casino? That could happen no matter what goes in there or who operates it, no?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Your point is valid, but does it matter? If none of the provincial parties have shown an interest in spending money to maintain or run OP over many years, why would that change now? The private sector will have a greater vested interest in maintaining the area as they don't make money in any other way. The gov't won't have to figure out how to operate it and yet they'll get to collect rent. Realistically, what is everyone so scared is going to happen? That Therme will fail & then Dougie will suggest a casino? That could happen no matter what goes in there or who operates it, no?

Well, I can only speak for myself. I have no problem with the principle of bringing on a private partner to run an appropriate and appropriately scaled business at Ontario Place in a manner that allows for the rest of the site to be leveraged. I don't think anyone is scared (at least not in the short term) that Therme will fail. Certainly some people don't want any private uses there but I don't think the majority. The issues here, IMHO are:
-A use that, both generally and for this specific company, does not typically operate on prime waterfront land;
-On the other side of the ledger, a failure by the Province to appreciate and maximize the value of prime land in the centre of Toronto's waterfront. with built-in heritage and cultural significance;
-Architecture that dwarfs the existing, significant architecture;
-An attempt to spin a day spa/water park as some sort of mental health facility, or public benefit or whatever;
-A significant public investment in a climate-damaging parking facility to enable the facility, even though the Province is already making a huge investment in a subway that stops across the street;
-The other end of that subway terminates at a major cultural attraction, also with architectural significance, which the Province has secretly manuevered to neglect and shut down, both so it can leverage a land grab at Don Mills/Eg and and to spin that both the crazy-huge parking lot and overall Ontario Place project are really a public good;
-The deal with Therme may or may not be "good" for taxpayers but we have no idea what Therme is putting in, in contrast to what we can see the government investing. Given this government's track record, particularly on the Greenbelt right now, and their deceptive bait and switch with the Science Centre, and Highway 413 etc etc., I'm not remotely inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt on the deal they made or the process that lead to it;

I'm good with a Therme spa somewhere else and I'm good with any number of other uses that could work or could have worked at Ontario Place. But I'm not good with this deal simply because successive governments didn't know what to do with Ontario Place, let it fall apart and now need to make a proverbial deal with the devil to "save" it. Others probably feel more strongly than I do or see a casino conspiracy theory but for me, once this thing is built - like Greenbelt land that is developed following a "flawed process" - it can't be undone. The government is showing a lot of bluster and a complete lack of hubris given that signfiicance.

 

[picard102]

First of all, you don't seem to grasp what private means in this context.

Then you go on to define the word to mean what you want it to for two paragraphs. OP had an admission fee, and so will Therme. Both are the same level of public accessibility. The government still owns the public land in either scenario.

All that matters here, which is perhaps what you are missing, is the difference between the government operating a public facility -whether it's Algonquin Park, Ontario Place or the Ontario Science Centre - and the government selling/leasing a facility to a private, for-profit company to operate.

The difference is Therme will be the one losing money and not the province.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Then you go on to define the word to mean what you want it to for two paragraphs. OP had an admission fee, and so will Therme. Both are the same level of public accessibility. The government still owns the public land in either scenario.

No - because you are avoiding the relevant defintion. Canada's Wonderland is publicly accessible if I pay. So is the front row of Taylor Swift's show and so is a camp site at Algonquin Park and so is the first class section of a flight to Paris,. Who cares?
What is RELEVANT in this context is how the government is divesting itself of public land by leasing it (yes, they technically still own it; again, who cares?) to a private entity that will fundamentally alter the site.
As I also said, we have had paid admission in the past for Ontario Place and indeed, we pay to access Echo Beach or the Budweiser Stage or the Cinesphere. All fine, as far as I'm concerned.
That. Is. Not. The. Issue.

The difference is Therme will be the one losing money and not the province.

If this is your strongest defense of the project, more power to you.
I'd rather have something profitable and appropriate. I don't care if Live Nation operates the concert stage or if Cineplex takes over the Cinesphere or if Oliver & Bonacini are in charge of food services. I do care that the use doesn't destroy what makes Ontario Place special and while there is certainly subjectivity in that, I explained above why, in my opinion, what Threme has proposed, and the government accepted, does not qualify.