picard102
Senior Member
It's not anymore "private" than Ontario Place was for decades. Either way you paid to get into the waterpark.
Toronto Ontario Place | ?m | ?s | Infrastructure ON
- Thread starter vistaway
- Start date
It's not anymore "private" than Ontario Place was for decades. Either way you paid to get into the waterpark.
Northern Light
Superstar
I thought about it, and as a subject expert on ecological restoration.......
I think I should explain why the above is not what you seem to think it is........
Let's start here:
The current trees at Ontario Place are up to 60 years of age, they are vastly larger than anything that will replace them in the near term. (50 years in the ground at Ontario Place, but were 10 years old when planted)
A Bald Eagle will nest atop a 50 year old White Pine tree.
It will not nest in a 10 year old one, or 20, or 30, or 40.
Why not? Because it wants to nest about 60ft + off the ground.
(this is true of other species of Birds of Prey, who mostly prefer very tall trees)
But it isn't just height that matters; it's girth. Raccoons, Squirrels, and Owls among many other species set up shop inside hollows in trees, which only occur and have structural stability when a tree is much larger than it will be at 10 years of age. (typically 30 years or greater is required)
As such, even if an idealistic habitat replaced what was present, it wouldn't be that idealistic habitat for several decades.
****
Next, let's talk about the fresh air value of those mature trees......
"The results show that mature trees are more efficient than young trees for air quality-environmental benefits by avoiding air pollution emissions and secondary formations. The increase in tree age provides a larger canopy and bigger Leaf Surface Area (LSA). Nowak (1994) reported that large, healthy trees (diameter > 30 in) have approximately 60–70 times more ability to reduce air pollution emissions annually than small healthy trees (diameter < 10 in)"
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7970529/
So, on a tree for tree basis, you're going to cut your effective pollution reduction ability by 98%, even at triple the number of trees, you would be looking at a 95% reduction for many years.
****
Finally, let's talk about landscape design and restoration planting work.......
When you hear '3 for 1' you seem to think that's what you end up with..........but it is not so.
Watch:
The gold standard for a reforestation site would be planting at a density of 1 woody plant (tree or shrub) per 1m2 (industry standard is 1 per 4m2)
You do not plant at this density expecting every plant to reach maturity at this density, because it's literally physically impossible.
Go into a mature forest and see the distance that occurs between trees in most contexts (not all, and there is species variability)
What you'll notice is that a mature tree can be well over 2M in diameter in Toronto. Clearly, if one tree can occupy 4m2 by itself, you're not going to get 4 mature trees/shrubs with a 1 per m2 planting.
In general, you'll see distances of 3-5M between mature trees in a dense forest. Thought of in area, this is a range of 1 tree every 9m2, to 1 tree every 25m2.
***
So why on earth would we plant woody vegetation so densely at the beginning if most of the trees won't make it to maturity?
The answer to that is three-fold:
1) The industry standard of this type of planting is to achieve 70% or better survival three years after planting.
This is to account of losses due to transplant shock, poor quality planting stock, predation (beavers, voles, even rabbits can kill smaller trees by gnawing at soft bark), and also to allow for something like a nasty drought hitting your site in the first or second year after planting, before roots are well established.
2) There is a desire to keep invasive species from seeding into a planting, so you want it packed tightly with desirable plants.
3) When trees are positioned closely to one another, limiting their ability to grow horizontally, they grow more quickly vertically to capture sunlight. It's a planting tactic to get more height sooner.
If you actually have your 70%+ survival rate, however, what will happen with time is that some trees and shrubs will grow more quickly than others, and over-top (shade) them out, with faster growing crowns and roots, they will slowly kill off their competition, reducing the number of trees and making room for fewer, larger plants.
So when you hear '3 for 1' on a restoration-style planting, you need to account for the fact, that fewer than 1/3 of those trees will ever reach maturity and you will not end up with 3 times as many trees at all.
When you're talking purely 'landscape' trees the scenario may be different, depending on the style of planting.
But I can tell you right now there is zero chance of there be 3x the number of mature trees on this site, in 50 years time, based on the plans as shown. Not happening at all.
I would have to read the detailed landscape plans to make a credible estimate, but it will be a lot less than the above.
****
To sum up....... small trees are vastly less beneficial ecologically, from an air quality standpoint, from a habitat stand point, and from an Urban Heat Island stand point.
They produce more than 90% less clean air and provide significantly less shade (hence less impact on temperature).
Number of trees spec'ed in a planting do not equal the number expected to survive to maturity in any natural/pseudo-natural style planting.
***
One add-on, this is a mature Toronto tree:
Photo Credit: Matt Smith
Sourced here: https://www.yourleaf.org/sites/default/files/2015/humber_bur_oak.jpg
Those are all adult-sized humans in that Bur Oak in the Humber Valley. (worth noting, the lowest climber you can see in this photo is 30ft off the ground)
It takes several decades to reach that size........ at least 4.
Last edited:
generalcanada
Senior Member
Because I live in the area and want to see Ontario Place returned to its former theme park. A theme park that contributes to the benefit of all. The one I used to go to as a kid. The log flume ride I used to ride, the atom blaster building I spent entire days in as a 10 year old. The bumper boats I spent entire afternoons at.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
You need to understanding that Therme is in this to make money. And a smart business will listen to any aspect of public feedback if it helps them turn a better profit in the end. Conversely, they'll ignore aspects of said feedback if they know they can get away with it. This should suggest to you not trust them at their words when they're waving these platitudes around. Nor should our government, especially in dealing with public lands.
...and everything else Northern Light-san said on this.
Edit/Erratum: You need to understand*...proper.
Last edited:
TossYourJacket
Senior Member
But we must think of the poor suffering Austrian corporations!!! They are clearly the true victims here for having people be so mad at them when they just want to build a nice spa that will make them lots of money on public land (where the government is also using taxpayer money to build their goddamn parking garage to help them make more money because they can't afford it themselves!) /s
In all seriousness, the revised proposal is better, but this whole situtation feels like government welfare towards a private company.
mferna
Active Member
Check out new updates on the project here New updates live in a new article https://urbantoronto.ca/news/2023/0...dated-design-ontario-places-west-island.53667
Natika33
Active Member
Ontario Place is defined as "a park with attractions" not just "a park". It's sad that we'll lose some 60 year old trees & displace some animals for a bit, but if mature trees were able to be established on man-made ground in the 1970s, I fail to understand why they can't be established around the perimetre of the west island again (I understand likely not on the green roof part but other plants will grow there).
I like the new design way more than the first design and I think it addresses many of the concerns (more park, more porosity, less view obstruction, less danger to birds, etc). It's leased, not bought, by Therme, so I don't think it meets the definition of "privatized". Besides which, maintenance costs have to come from somewhere, so if the fees to go to the water park help with that, isn't that a good thing?
If this gets built, I'm going to be super proud to bring my non-Torontonian friends to see the rooftop park, the gardens around, & the inside. Is there anything like it anywhere in the world right now?
I like the new design way more than the first design and I think it addresses many of the concerns (more park, more porosity, less view obstruction, less danger to birds, etc). It's leased, not bought, by Therme, so I don't think it meets the definition of "privatized". Besides which, maintenance costs have to come from somewhere, so if the fees to go to the water park help with that, isn't that a good thing?
If this gets built, I'm going to be super proud to bring my non-Torontonian friends to see the rooftop park, the gardens around, & the inside. Is there anything like it anywhere in the world right now?
adma
Superstar
May I tell you something--raw juvenile nostalgia isn't always the best perspective to bring to the table. Other than the bumper boats (you're talking about the ones below the pods, right?), none of those were "original" OP features, they were features added on to "justify" the place as a public facility. They could have been anyplace. Even your use of the term "theme park" reflects a skewed notion of the role OP played (and disregards the fact that the term "theme park" has often been a *negative* metaphor in architectural and planning terms). Maybe it's what you remember fondly; but it's also a reminder of how too many eggs in the fondly-remembered-childhood basket can be a formula for civic philistinism, because of some absent-mindedly patronizing notion that kids are generally too young and too blissfully ignorant to know any better. (Which reminds me of how in my erstwhile garage-sale ventures w/my mother, our rule of thumb tended to be to avoid any house with a whole lot of 80s-onward toys and "kid's stuff" Like, the contemporary "kid-o-sphere" being an alibi for so much plastic kitsch and junk, it's not funny.)
Now, if we're going to go into "10-year-old perspectives", I knew OP in the beginning. In many ways, what it offered in the beginning would seem thin gruel for the young visitor--not much more than a picturesque park to promenade in, pods to promenade up and down and across, pavilions w/so-so carny food and carbonated beverages, bumper boats and stuff, the Forum, and "North Of Superior" at the Cinesphere. Yet for all the prosaic offerings, something felt "worth the childhood visit"--the architectural ooh and aah, the roaming around the Hough landscape, or past the yachts and to the end of the long pier. Though maybe a bit "is that it?" after a couple of visits, unless one was going to a Forum show. But still, one might say that I could intuit the "Zeidler magic" even if I was too young to know who Zeidler was.
But the next year, it had something kid-friendly added--the original Children's Village, which was much more "integral" to the original vision (i.e. at that juncture, you couldn't imagine it anyplace *other* than Ontario Place; it really did feel like an extension of the layout, and the "vibe").
The year after *that*, though (or was it two years, can't recall), Children's Village added the water attractions. Which I never warmed to, mainly because I wasn't into the youthful hassle of changing in and out of bathing suits--but maybe that says something deeper, because water-park attractions do tend to be standalone by their nature, they're not as "come as you are". They're the narcissistic stuff of the proverbial Mt Splashmore or more mercenary "Action Park" affairs. They don't quite feel like "civic benefits" except by proxy.
And in due time, the compartmentalized splashiness of the water attractions came to overshadow the post-hippie dustiness of the original Children's Village. And in effect, the "theme parking" of OP began there, for better or worse.
Unfortunately, there's some casual notion out there that's been baked in over the past few decades that kids should *only* exist, and grow up within, an insulated kid-o-sphere, and the big non-kid outside world ought to be helicopter-parented away. Like the notion of their sitting at any kind of figurative "adult table"--or be witness to and fascinated by a world beyond their own kid-o-sphere--opens them up to "harmful contaminants"; or maybe just traumatizes and upsets them.
But here's a pre-Ontario Place anecdote of my own. As a young child, I lived off Roncesvalles--and even when we moved away, my grandparents still lived off Roncesvalles. And as a young child, I liked to go to High Park, to the playground, to the zoo.
Emphasis on the "go to" part. That is, I liked the *process* of going to the playground and the zoo, the walk down High Park Blvd, etc. I took pleasure in the connective fabric, the ritual passage, the world beyond myself. It wasn't just about the coordinates of the playground and the zoo; it was also about the connective fabric, and the awareness of infinite fabric beyond--park trails to explore, nooks and crannies to explore, etc. It was all about the symbiosis, about being fascinated by how it was all put together. The kid stuff could allow me to be a kid; the stuff beyond could enable a kid to be wise beyond one's years, and the two existed in a fine balance.
It was that same symbiosis that made a youthful family shopping trip to Loblaws & Towers as satisfying as one to High Park (and even when it was by car, looking out the window). And it was that same symbiosis that made a trip to Ontario Place pleasurable even when its kid offerings were more limited.
But once *everything*, positive-memory-wise, is front-loaded upon the log flume, the "atom blaster building", the bumper boats...it's a meagre thing.
As a kid, I can say that I "got Zeidler and Hough", much as I "got John Howard" in High Park, even if it was simply by osmosis. But I don't get the impression that you did...
Skyhighzz
Active Member
The renderings look great? Lol. No they don’t. The previous plan of the beach part was so much better. That’s regressed terribly. It’s all dull grey pavement & pathways overwhelming everything. Previous plan of different coloured pavers & slabs on pathways was actually nice.
More earthy. Where’d that go? Cheap decision. The best part of prev. design was the beach. For the most part, those awful glass structures are gone. More wood & green foliage might be an improvement but nothing stands out. Looks chaotic & messy imo.. And I ‘m not crazy about the original OP structures still there (Maybe the sphere can stay)- it just doesn’t mesh well. The new plan is like the C version. Not impressive. It doesn’t matter, Therme & Ford will not get that thing built.
More earthy. Where’d that go? Cheap decision. The best part of prev. design was the beach. For the most part, those awful glass structures are gone. More wood & green foliage might be an improvement but nothing stands out. Looks chaotic & messy imo.. And I ‘m not crazy about the original OP structures still there (Maybe the sphere can stay)- it just doesn’t mesh well. The new plan is like the C version. Not impressive. It doesn’t matter, Therme & Ford will not get that thing built.
SubHuman
Active Member
I'm still suspicious of the sincerity of Live Nation's stated intention to rebuild the present amphitheatre into an expanded and year-round venue, when something like that would obviously be better located across the road closer to the GO/TTC station, and with the other proposal for an entertainment venue at Exhibition Place presumably being abandoned soon, if that hasn't already happened.
Rebuilding the stage and seating bowl to be on higher ground to avoid flooding, and the indoor/outdoor concept sounds maybe impractical or at least overly complicated, and I would assume result in it being closed for a year or two for construction, all to end up with a suboptimal seating configuration at a suboptimal location. Building an entirely new and purposefully designed indoor venue, of the similar 7,000 to 9,000-seat size of the above-mentioned proposals, at a better site would seem more realistic, and I would think they could work out a deal with Exhibition Place, comparable to the MLSE arrangements for the Coliseum and stadium.
Last edited:
Natika33
Active Member
Attachments
Skyhighzz
Active Member
It looks different to me from what I can recall. Some earlier design pics aren’t all here or I can’t find them. Different angles of design maybe? Not quite sure what’s separate from Therme space & other parks & spaces connecting? I just don’t remember or like the all grey pavement.
Dinamo5
New Member
Not going to please everyone that is for sure, I like it, it's not perfect but considering what has been sitting there for so long unused and ugly. Start construction tomorrow, it has been far too long. Build more islands if more parkland is needed, those trucks taking soil away from downtown construction projects should be redirected to making a new island.
UtakataNoAnnex
Senior Member
...I am open to giving Therme its own island/pod here. Leaving the rest of the OP to public usage.
And yeah...Therme can pony up for all of this if they're so desperate in making this happen.
And yeah...Therme can pony up for all of this if they're so desperate in making this happen.
Natika33
Active Member
I'm not sure I understand this comment. The gov't contracted Therme to redevelop this land. Therme is therefore attempting to fulfill their contract. Where are they showing they are "so desperate"?