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

[reinventingthewheel]

Many places can "view" the lake, but proximity is more valuable.

Likewise many places can “view” a subway station but proximity is more valuable.

Maybe if swimming in the lake was a more popular activity at OP then you could make a better argument for building right on the water. But it’s truly just for the view from a window in the facility, they can achieve this from the BLC’s site. If they’re building even a bit more vertically than the BLC they can also obstruct the view of the road.

 

[picard102]

Likewise many places can “view” a subway station but proximity is more valuable.

Which would be relevant if we weren't talking about a spa/waterpark, next to a massive parking lot.

Maybe if swimming in the lake was a more popular activity at OP then you could make a better argument for building right on the water.

You mean like if they built a public beach?

But it’s truly just for the view from a window in the facility

Which document was that in?

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I mean, it maybe "contaminated" with all the goose poop one has stepped in over the last 50 years...

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Which would be relevant if we weren't talking about a spa/waterpark, next to a massive parking lot.

LOL we’ve already established that it will be designed to account for only the forecasted 10% of modal share. Sure let’s ignore the rest!

Which document was that in?

Admittedly speculative, but my point still stands.

At the BLC site, the spa could be ~500m from a major transit hub and ~500m from a public beach.

 

[picard102]

At the BLC site, the spa could be ~500m from a major transit hub and ~500m from a public beach.

and ~500m from where they want it to be in the first place.

 

[thefreak]

c'mon man don't go there don't do personal attacks. i've read those reports. have you? it litterally says the soil is contaminated and needs to be completely replaced. sure it's not "poisonous" per se, but it's contaminated which is what happens to soil after 50 years of neglect. it doesn't need to be poisonous to need to be replaced

I'm interested to know more about this neglected soil

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

One is on the lake, the other is across the road from the lake.

Yes. A huge difference of like 100 feet.

But I mean, to state the obvious, one has a subway station in the middle of it and one requires a silly shuttle to get people from the subway to the front doors because (wait for it) it's across the road.

I'd also assume, perhaps incorrectly, the condition of the lands is generally better on the CNE site, since it's not entirely landfill.

But as lovely as those sweet lakefront views may be, the CNE access is far, far superior.

 

[picard102]

But as lovely as those sweet lakefront views may be, the CNE access is far, far superior.

And that clearly isn't a concern.
So people can make up whatever justifications to move it to the CNE they want, but it's not what the government, nor the waterpark, are interested in.

 

[thecharioteer]

the suggestion that any of the better living center food building or hell even the stanley barracks should be torn down is honestly laughable. the loss of any of those buildings equate to a total loss of the CNE as we know it

Also the fact is that the province owns OP and the city owns the CNE grounds. If the city wants to redevelop the CNE they can (and they should).
There is no reason for the province to "deal with the cne grounds" before looking at CNE

To be clear it's the city's fault that the CNE is so deserted. Don't put it on the province

I also wouldn't be so quick as to throw the Better Living Centre away. Designed by Marani Morris and Allan in 1962, it won the Massey Medal for Architecture in 1964, and is one of the CNE's finest Modernist buildings.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

And that clearly isn't a concern.
So people can make up whatever justifications to move it to the CNE they want, but it's not what the government, nor the waterpark, are interested in.

You seem to think this is an argument rather than a demonstration of a significant part of the problem

The heritage issues also clearly aren't a concern. Nor the clear cutting of trees. Nor the size or cost of the parking lot. Nor the loss of the Science Centre building or the degree to which their plan fails to accommodate its exhibits.

Just going to toss out for your consideration that maybe the fact that these things are "clearly not a concern," is the entire fricking problem that appears be a either eluding you?

Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, some or even all of these things should be of concern to someone with some oversight of the project? Certainly they are the cocnerns of many of us here. Certainly they are the concerns of Toronto planning staff and much of council. Certainly they are concerns to thousands of people who aren't Doug Ford or IO or the faceless folks behind Therme (r you). That's the whole point you seem to consistently miss (on purpose, is my guess).

(Also, to conclude: Yes, obviously the province, which put out an RFP for developing their land isn't interested in moving their selected project to land they don't even own. Duh. That's immaterial to people pointing out objective reasons it makes more sense there than it does on the lakefront site, notwithstanding your "argument" that the waterfront land is more valuable even if it's less accessible and so obviously that's where they want the spa. To which, again, I say, duh. Who cares?.)

 

[picard102]

That's immaterial to people pointing out objective reasons it makes more sense there.

Except it's subjective as well, predicated on the idea that it shouldn't be at OP at all.

 

[Northern Light]

Except it's subjective as well, predicated on the idea that it shouldn't be at OP at all.

This argument would end all discussions about everything ever.

It is therefore not workable.

Your assertion if that one cannot prefer something to something else and do so for legitimate or objective reasons, that the very act of having a preference disqualifies the opinion.

This of course would disqualify your opinion, that of the government and the proponent.

How about we stick to the idea of debating the relative merits of the proposal.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Except it's subjective as well, predicated on the idea that it shouldn't be at OP at all.

Better and worse are subjective.
Closer to the subway is not subjective.
The number of cars required to accesss a site further from the subway or the requirement for a shutle bus, for the same reason, is not subjective.
The number of trees that have to be cut down is not subjective.
The archtiectrual relationship between the exsiting Ontario Place buildings and a building next door, as compared to a building across the street is not subjective.
The relative sizes of the existing and proposed Science Centres are not subjective (and while it's arguably a bit more of a grey area, neither are the architectural siignificance of the existing OP and OSC buildings).

Yeah - most of us don't think it should be at OP at all. But most of us also don't object to a Therme spa in an appropriate location. And, as you can see, many of us think that, all things being equal, even the CNE - right next door - would make more sense for several reasons. Some of those reasons might be subjective and certainly no one thinks the Province is going to make a deal to move the spa, with whom they now have a contract, to City-owned land etc., But there's enough objective demerits with the current proposal to warrant more scrutiny and consideration than the Province appears to be giving it. That's kinda the point here.

This argument would end all discussions about everything ever.

It is therefore not workable.

Yeah, let's not forget - "It's better than nothing," is about the level of argument we usually get from this fellow.
The rest of us should feel confident that in our own lives we set the bar higher than "it's better than nothing" and "well, it's all subjective," as if nothing has any inherent or discernible value.

 

[CapitalSeven]

It's not that Therme shouldn't or can't be at Ontario Place. No matter how well you design it, it just seems to be too big. You can't build it there without wrecking the West Island.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

In theory, there might have been a way to put a facility with the same uses Therme is proposing. Everybody likes a spa and there's nothing wrong with waterslides.

But it also seems that their model is this mega-architecture and the Provincial constraints are pretty minimal so there is likely no way to shape this proposal in such a way that it would work within the context of the site.

So, yes, the Therme spa is a perhaps a nice addition to Toronto, if properly sited and designed.

And yes, perhaps a spa/waterpark thingie (and improved concert facility) are reasonable long-term uses at Ontario Place, if you're not overwhelming the existing buildings, destroying the West Island etc.

But based on what we've seen from the RFP, the design changes etc. It seems unlikely to me that these things can actually be reconciled. For it to work financially for Therme and IO, it has to be here and be at this scale, so we're back at square one.