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

[concrete_and_light]

Personally, I would like to see Therme scaled back a bit...or maybe moved to one of the parking lots in OP and The Ex with a connection over the Lake Shore.

I was thinking similarly when I was in the area last night that building the Therme concept on one of the parking lots would make a lot more sense and wouldn't involve obliterating the West Island. But I feel like Therme is probably more drawn to the coastline of the island and the full view out to the lake as a customer and business benefit instead of being just inside the bay there without the full lake view.

I also imagine there's a desire to keep parking to some degree in order for people to drive to these attractions. I imagine these parking lots will be redeveloped in the future but likely in a way that incorporates some new parking as well. Does anyone have a sense of the viability of digging underground parking in those current parking lot locations — would the proximity to the lake and solidity of the ground be an issue or limit how deep they could go?

 

[W. K. Lis]

I was thinking similarly when I was in the area last night that building the Therme concept on one of the parking lots would make a lot more sense and wouldn't involve obliterating the West Island. But I feel like Therme is probably more drawn to the coastline of the island and the full view out to the lake as a customer and business benefit instead of being just inside the bay there without the full lake view.

I also imagine there's a desire to keep parking to some degree in order for people to drive to these attractions. I imagine these parking lots will be redeveloped in the future but likely in a way that incorporates some new parking as well. Does anyone have a sense of the viability of digging underground parking in those current parking lot locations — would the proximity to the lake and solidity of the ground be an issue or limit how deep they could go?

When they moved the streetcar loop to under the Gardiner for the Enercare Centre, they did so allowing for an 850 vehicle underground parking garage. According to records, at least 60,000 people used the streetcars to the Exhibition Loop. Again, public transit users were treated as second class.

Don't know the number of riders using the GO trains to come to the CNE.

Maybe we can use camels to transport people to and from the Exhibition Loop/Station to Ontario Place.

From link.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I was thinking similarly when I was in the area last night that building the Therme concept on one of the parking lots would make a lot more sense and wouldn't involve obliterating the West Island. But I feel like Therme is probably more drawn to the coastline of the island and the full view out to the lake as a customer and business benefit instead of being just inside the bay there without the full lake view.

I also imagine there's a desire to keep parking to some degree in order for people to drive to these attractions. I imagine these parking lots will be redeveloped in the future but likely in a way that incorporates some new parking as well. Does anyone have a sense of the viability of digging underground parking in those current parking lot locations — would the proximity to the lake and solidity of the ground be an issue or limit how deep they could go?

I thought the existing OP parking lots (particularly the East lot) would make a pretty good spot for a hotel - though the exact siting would have to be designed in conjunction with any potential land bridge over from the Ex. Parking would go underneath the structure.

I was thinking similarly when I was in the area last night that building the Therme concept on one of the parking lots would make a lot more sense and wouldn't involve obliterating the West Island. But I feel like Therme is probably more drawn to the coastline of the island and the full view out to the lake as a customer and business benefit instead of being just inside the bay there without the full lake view.

I also imagine there's a desire to keep parking to some degree in order for people to drive to these attractions. I imagine these parking lots will be redeveloped in the future but likely in a way that incorporates some new parking as well. Does anyone have a sense of the viability of digging underground parking in those current parking lot locations — would the proximity to the lake and solidity of the ground be an issue or limit how deep they could go?

I don't even have a huge issue with the location of Therme - the issue I have is how the proposal will reconcile public access (and their need for back of house and service access) at the edge of the development - that's one of the priority of OP as a public asset in my books.

AoD

 

[lenaitch]

I thought the existing OP parking lots (particularly the East lot) would make a pretty good spot for a hotel - though the exact siting would have to be designed in conjunction with any potential land bridge over from the Ex. Parking would go underneath the structure.

Other than whatever ultimately goes into OP, it's a rather isolated location for a hotel, and would think building a structure below grade at that location would be problematic.

I do like the idea of a Science Centre ''campus' at the site; perhaps in one or both of the pods.

 

[mildlyamusingusername]

I hope if they do introduce educational programming that the Cinesphere still keeps on showing classic and new movie releases at night, it’s one of the best IMAX theatres in the world, and it’d be a shame just to exclusively relegate it to documentaries they already show at the science centre.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Other than whatever ultimately goes into OP, it's a rather isolated location for a hotel, and would think building a structure below grade at that location would be problematic.

I do like the idea of a Science Centre ''campus' at the site; perhaps in one or both of the pods.

In and on its own, maybe - but I am thinking of linkage over Lake Shore to the Hotel X/Ex complex; no doubt underground parking at the site will poses challenges, but it is probably not all that different from similar structures along the lake.

I hope if they do introduce educational programming that the Cinesphere still keeps on showing classic and new releases at night, it’s one of the best IMAX theatres in the world, and it’d be a shame just to exclusively relegate it to documentaries they already show at the science centre.

Maybe use the dome during the day as a planetarium? It's on the large side, but I can't imagine it is impossible.

AoD

 

[concrete_and_light]

I don't even have a huge issue with the location of Therme - the issue I have is how the proposal will reconcile public access (and their need for back of house and service access) at the edge of the development - that's one of the priority of OP as a public asset in my books.

This is a super good point — where is the back of house for this project? I imagine for a facility like this and of this scale it would have to be pretty significant — water filtration, food services, all sorts of infrastructure to the support the spa services they'd provide etc.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This is a super good point — where is the back of house for this project? I imagine for a facility like this and of this scale it would have to be pretty significant — water filtration, food services, all sorts of infrastructure to the support the spa services they'd provide etc.

I imagine they could - if they have a petal like arrangement of spaces - group it towards the centre of the complex and have it mostly hidden from view - whether that will be the case or not, who knows?

AoD

 

[Torontovibe]

True but that doesn't mean that the next government is going to build a large free park on the grounds of Ontario place I'm sorry but that land is too valuable to just waste as a park.

I agree, it is not needed as passive parkland. Do people not realize Ontario Place is surrounded on all sides by parks? Why not use such valuable land for what was intended, leisure activity, amusements, tourism, restaurants, bars, culture and dare I say it, FUN? Fun is not illegal in Ontario, yet. Why keep demanding more parkland, when the parks that we have there are very much underused. I have been to Trillium Park at least a dozen times since it was built and I have never seen it very busy. In fact, I have never seen even 10% of the benches used at any given time. Sure, people jog/cycle through the park and along the paths but few people spend time in the park, other than for large events at Ontario Place. Those people don't come for Trillium park, they come for the festivals at OP. I can't see the value of more generic parkland at this location when clearly, there is no need for it because this area is not short of public parkland. (see pic above)

Picture taken from Google Earth

 

[Torontovibe]

See that's the problem people want it to be free and open for everyone and they think that will bring people their. Having a cost or having or having to walk across parking lots isn't what has been keeping people from going their it's a lack of something that people actually want to do. Before it closed the only time it was busy was in June when school groups would come in for a Feild trip, or when they had fireworks at night or a concert at the ampthaterare otherwise people came in and stayed at the waterpark all day the wilderness adventure flume ride was a walk on and staff would go on it at times when it wasn't busy. Park land isn't going to attract people to visit for the day the waterpark idea will.

Why can't you have both? Have part of the attractions free of cost or low cost and also have some higher end attractions. This is public land, paid for by us, so why can't we have a say in how it's built? Does every paid attraction have to be expensive? Why not have a little something for everyone like most governments do. How about a few free attractions sponsored by the Ontario government, so people who don't want to spend hundreds of dollars can still have a fun place to bring their family? Why does it have to be all or nothing? We can afford to spend a few million on a Children's Village type attraction or a free/low cost museum in one of the pods. Restaurants and bars are useful too and an indoor market building could also be useful. Not a typical, generic mall but an Ontario themed market that mixes tourist type fare with arts, culture and food.

There are ways to mix public and private to make the park accessible and useful for everyone, not just corporations! It really doesn't need to be all or nothing. Is it impossible for people to come up with new, original, hybred ideas in this province? Come on, we keep being told we are a "creative city". Let's see a little creativity and build something that truly reflects us and our values!

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

Why can't you have both? Have part of the attractions free of cost or low cost and also have some higher end attractions? This is public land, paid for by us, so why can't we have a say in how it's built? Does every paid attraction have to be expensive? Why not have a little something for everyone like most governments do. How about a few free attractions sponsored by the Ontario government, so people who don't want to spend hundreds of dollars can still have a fun place to bring their family? Why does it have to be all or nothing? We can afford to spend a few million on a Children's Village type attraction or a free/low cost museum in one of the pods. Restaurants and bars are useful too and an indoor market building could be useful too. Not a typical, generic mall but an Ontario themed mall that mixes tourist type fare with arts, culture and food.

There are ways to mix public and private to make the park accessible and useful for everyone, not just corporations! It really doesn't need to be all or nothing. Is it impossible for people to come up with new, original, hybred ideas in this province? Come on, we keep being told we are a "creative city". Let's see a little creativity and build something that truly reflects us and our values!

your post above this completely contradicts this. You pointed out how much parkland is around Onatioro place and then even said that it's underused which I agree with adding more isn't going to bring people to Ontario Place right now the only thing that large groups of people go to it (under normal conditions) are concerts the amphitheatre Triluim is not a tourist draw and people from all parts of Toronto aren't coming in a park-like that t if they have one near by for example where I am if I want to walk by the lake I'll go to the boardwalk and not Ontario place

 

[Torontovibe]

your post above this completely contradicts this. You pointed out how much parkland is around Onatioro place and then even said that it's underused which I agree with adding more isn't going to bring people to Ontario Place right now the only thing that large groups of people go to it (under normal conditions) are concerts the amphitheatre Triluim is not a tourist draw and people from all parts of Toronto aren't coming in a park-like that t if they have one near by for example where I am if I want to walk by the lake I'll go to the boardwalk and not Ontario place

I'm not sure what you're saying here. We already have Trillium park as part of Ontario Place, so I wasn't calling for more passive parkland but I will say that the proposed beach will be a nice addition to the public areas. I was calling for more year-round things to do for both Torontonians and tourists. We need more variety than what has been offered so far, which I hope is coming down the line. Hopefully somebody from the government reads this site on occasion and may be swayed by comments seen here. Or at least we can hope!

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

I'm not sure what you're saying here. We already have Trillium park as part of Ontario Place, so I wasn't calling for more passive parkland but I will say that the proposed beach will be a nice addition to the public areas. I was calling for more year-round things to do for both Torontonians and tourists. We need more variety than what has been offered so far, which I hope is coming down the line. Hopefully somebody from the government reads this site on occasion and may be swayed by comments seen here. Or at least we can hope!

I highly doubt that anyone from the government is actually reading this.

However I do agree that they do need to announce more things I also hope that the city anounnces something with the exhibition grounds as outside of the enercare centre nothing is used year round.

 

[Kraylin]

I tried to read through all those posts but most are irrelevant now considering we no longer have input if we ever did. Wake me up in 10 years when construction starts.

 

[Northern Light]

David Olive over at The Star has a scathing piece on the Ontario Place proposal.

He also asserts that it will never actually happen.

Then goes on to make the case that the OP should be 100% free admission, and should model itself more after Millennium Park in Chicago (which he argues lifted some traits of the original OP).

Article link here:

David Olive: Ford’s proposed redevelopment plan for Ontario Place won’t fail — because it’s not going to happen

What Ford presented last week as a fait accompli is actually in its infancy and its formal unveiling last week was embarrassing in its lack of details, David Olive writes

www.thestar.com

It is paywalled, but Outline works.