Toronto RBC WaterPark Place III | 140.2m | 30s | Oxford Properties | WZMH

Parkdalian said:
The ACC section - in particular, the stairs - looks pretty embarrassing in person.
Click to expand...
"Embarrassing" how? To who? I agree it could be a LOT better compared to other PATH connections, i.e. Royal Bank Plaza to the TD Centre, but I'm not exactly sure who would be embarrassed or why.

And I'm not sure how they could change much, anyhow, without some major modifications.

I'm just happy there will be a connection, and that the PATH now links all the way to the waterfront. Apart from the stairs themselves it's just fine.
 
The stair connection at ACC is horribly cheap, and embarrassing for MLSE, especially the crash doors at the bottom of the stairs. It all feels like a major copout.

42
 
When I went to go see the new PATH connection, I avoided those stairs by going outside and into Maple Leaf Square to using the escalator there. I was just too tired/lazy do deal with the stairs. I'd rather walk outside in the cold, to get to that PATH connection but I think it's pretty pathetic that they didn't put an escalator inside the ACC connection. It's very much needed.

I was quite surprised by the attractive food court in WaterPark Place. I didn't even know there was a public space in there or that there was a food court, that close to the waterfront. Has that always been there or was it built for the new addition? I'll stop there and eat before going to Centre Island, from now on.

I really like the new PATH connection. It opens up that area like never before and it's just a pleasant place to walk. (besides the ACC connection, which I hope changes in the near future)
 
Last edited:
That's a problem with PATH. It's a patchwork of passages with random stairs, doors and signage that can be confusing.

Ideally, all stairs and doors would be eliminated. Large skylights would be added so you could see landmarks on the street for simpler navigation, and there'd be some unifying design features and better signage.
 
^ Realistically, I don't think that will ever happen, and it's fine; we're lucky enough to have such a system in the first place. The reason I don't think it will be improved is when looking at university covered walkways/tunnels between buildings, you realize that such a system even on an infinitely smaller scale than the PATH and with one owner/governing body along the entire route, it is still confusing and nearly impossible to navigate by those who are unfamiliar with it. In the future, I think buildings that wish to integrate into the PATH should meet certain criteria, such as aligning their hallways on the PATH connecting floor to have as few turns as possible. This would obviously need to be done with anticipation of where the next connection(s) will be made. Obviously that is difficult to predict, there might be buildings that wish to opt out, etc. But I do believe that since PATH is such a selling feature, developers should not be allowed to connect to it without worrying about future connections through their buildings.
 
junctionist said:
It can be done over a few decades. The city should encourage it since PATH is one of the city's more useful and outstanding public amenities.
Click to expand...

It can't be done. Ever. At least for the doors. Those doors are there because of the fire code. If all of the doors were removed from the PATH system, then a fire could spread uninterrupted throughout the entire core. They don't have the necessary fire vents and safeguards that a subway tunnel would have.
 
someMidTowner said:
It can't be done. Ever. At least for the doors. Those doors are there because of the fire code. If all of the doors were removed from the PATH system, then a fire could spread uninterrupted throughout the entire core. They don't have the necessary fire vents and safeguards that a subway tunnel would have.
Click to expand...

Safeguards could be installed to make doors unnecessary.
 
yes, at a stupidly large cost that would never ever ever come close to justifying it. nevermind essentially negating the entire point of the PATH as those safeguards would require open air escape vents for smoke, making the PATH as cold as outside.
 
hawc said:
Just like any guy in a dump truck could drive up on to the sidewalk and take out a whole load of people.
Click to expand...
Exactly, if people want something to worry about I'd say that's a greater risk than someone driving into the PATH bridge.

Or maybe worry about a dump truck full of ebola medical waste driving into the PATH bridge while the children and nuns from the local orphanage are crossing.
 
innsertnamehere said:
yes, at a stupidly large cost that would never ever ever come close to justifying it. nevermind essentially negating the entire point of the PATH as those safeguards would require open air escape vents for smoke, making the PATH as cold as outside.
Click to expand...

There's probably some way of conforming with the fire code that doesn't involve reinventing the wheel. Why not have some doors that roll out of a wall if a fire is detected to seal off the area?
 
junctionist said:
There's probably some way of conforming with the fire code that doesn't involve reinventing the wheel. Why not have some doors that roll out of a wall if a fire is detected to seal off the area?
Click to expand...

Just so we're clear: You want to add expense and complexity just because the fire code offends your sensibilities?
 
People really need to take a break. We have the most extended underground system of the entire world, you can read of people here complaining that we don't have heated sidewalk like in Finland or Norway yet the North European countries can just dream about a fantastic system like we have in Toronto, but the only thing that they can do is keep whining about details like fire doors. Surprised nobody complained yet about the EXIT signs still using the old standard.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top