Toronto Ripley's Aquarium of Canada | 13.11m | 2s | Ripley Entertainment | B+H

[TOareaFan]

And as I've suggested before--why must an aquarium be a "Ripley's" type affair? In Burlington, it can have a more frankly "educational" function--maybe in connection with the Canada Centre for Inland Waters...

you are right...now find someone to invest/spend the millions to build it......then debate the location. Since I was a kid people have talked of this mythical Toronto aquarium....I am no kid anymore and it would seem that Ripleys are the first with, both, a vision and chequebook

 

[Peepers]

Aquariums are like Opera Houses. Cities (if they are lucky) only get to build ONE. I would have thought that Toronto would have learned a lesson from the Opera House debacle where Diamond & Schmidt delivered a dud that we are stuck with for the rest of our lives.

The city should say no thanks to this inferior proposal from Ripley's and seek out a proposal that will truly be world class.

 

[MetroMan]

The Four Seasons Centre is far from being a dud. It's arguably one of the most superior opera houses in the world. Where I think we can agree on is that the exterior is a missed opportunity. The street level presence is sub par. However, I understand that they had a limited budget and they chose to spend it on what's the most important.

As for the exterior, we're not stuck with it for the rest of our lives. At some point in the future, architectural excellence will be valued a lot more in this city (we're heading there) so it's not difficult to see the exterior updated or even completely redone. After all, the auditorium is its own isolated building. Rebuilding what's around it is not as challenging as one would expect.

Now for the Aquarium, we still know little about the quality and size of the exhibit spaces but judging from the square footage presented in city documents, this is going to be quite large, comparable to other highly respected aquariums worldwide. What we do know about the building -- its exterior appearance -- is in fact very creative and interesting.

 

[oneillt]

Metroman I agree 100%. I was very disappointed with the exterior but the interior is one of the most classist venues in the country, I thoroughly enjoy going to shows there.

 

[Tewder]

what about it do you question? I don't think we've really been exposed to their plans yet apart from the footprint of the building (I could be wrong but I haven't seen anything or heard about the aquarium's content)

Well, for starters:

And as I've suggested before--why must an aquarium be a "Ripley's" type affair? In Burlington, it can have a more frankly "educational" function--maybe in connection with the Canada Centre for Inland Waters...

There are aquariums and there are aquariums. The Ripley's project will feel like a second rate side-show attraction, and all the more so that they are sticking it incongruously at the foot of the CN Tower. Tack-y!

Also, it is asinine that an aquarium not be on the water considering we are adjacent to Lake Ontario (like, hello?!). I mean, how much more obvious can this be? ... and nevermind the silly argument that the lake is fresh water, not salt water and bla, bla, bla...

Whether it should be some conmbination of private and public funding a Burlington/Hamilton location could be spectacular, given the right design. Some here just want to see it in Toronto at all cost, completely ignoring the fact that there are tourist sites throughout Ontario that actually get more visitors than sites in Toronto. A Toronto location will not automatically confer success.

Even within Toronto there are far better locations and concepts for a potential aquarium than this one... although, admittedly I must wait to see the final design, obviously.

 

[markel]

This is all absolutely irrelevant - nobody is going to invest in an aquarium if it is not in a major metropolitan city.

Actually the National Aquarium in New Zealand is situated in a town called Napier which is no where near what you can call a "major metropolitan city". It isn't even a suburb of a large city, Auckland, Chirstchurch, etc. It is on a smaller scale but still shows that investments will happen if it is planned properly.

The whole Burlington thing could do what the guggenheim museum did in bilbao, if given the same world-class treatment.

 

[Tulse]

Actually the National Aquarium in New Zealand is situated in a town called Napier which is no where near what you can call a "major metropolitan city".

Of course, the population of the entire country of New Zealand is about that of the GTA...

 

[markel]

Yes, agreed, however they also could have put it in Auckland which has a population of 1.4 million.

 

[interchange42]

The Monterey Bay Aquarium, one of the very best in the world, is in a city about the size of Burlington...

and one which is farther from San Francisco than Burlington is from Toronto.

To make a go of it in Burlington, an Aquarium would have to be a landmark destination, something spectacular, that wouldn't just be a stop on the way to Niagara Falls for people. It is entirely possible to do that, it's just that no-one has any money to do that...

Unfortunately the only funding source for an Aquarium anywhere in the Golden Horseshoe right now is from an American entertainment/amusement provider, and they are proposing to spend their budget in a place where they see their greatest possible return.

42

 

[Torontovibe]

The issue I have with Ripley's aquariums is that they are not based on education and research. They are amusements geared to entertain children. When you compare the Ripley's Aquarium in Myrtle Beach to the aquarium in Baltimore, it's like day to night. The Ripley's aquarium just wasn't in the same league as the Baltimore aquarium, which just seemed much more adult oriented, yet kid friendly. I obviously would prefer this to not be a Ripley's but if this is our only option, I guess it's better than nothing.

I just hope that this being in Toronto, Ripley's might take a more mature approach and not make it as superficial as the other ones. A great city deserves a quality aquarium, with well designed exhibits, not Disney style schlock. We don't need Sponge Bob shows and exhibits.

 

[Ramako]

The issue I have with Ripley's aquariums is that they are not based on education and research. They are amusements geared to entertain children. When you compare the Ripley's Aquarium in Myrtle Beach to the aquarium in Baltimore, it's like day to night. The Ripley's aquarium just wasn't in the same league as the Baltimore aquarium, which just seemed much more adult oriented, yet kid friendly. I obviously would prefer this to not be a Ripley's but if this is our only option, I guess it's better than nothing.

I just hope that this being in Toronto, Ripley's might take a more mature approach and not make it as superficial as the other ones. A great city deserves a quality aquarium, with well designed exhibits, not Disney style schlock. We don't need Sponge Bob shows and exhibits.

Given the difference in external architecture between Ripley's Myrtle Beach, Ripley's Gatlinburg and Ripley's Toronto, I'd expect a similar difference internally.

Myrtle Beach:

Gatlinburg:

Toronto:

 

[jn_12]

Well, for starters:

There are aquariums and there are aquariums. The Ripley's project will feel like a second rate side-show attraction, and all the more so that they are sticking it incongruously at the foot of the CN Tower. Tack-y!

Also, it is asinine that an aquarium not be on the water considering we are adjacent to Lake Ontario (like, hello?!). I mean, how much more obvious can this be? ... and nevermind the silly argument that the lake is fresh water, not salt water and bla, bla, bla...

Whether it should be some conmbination of private and public funding a Burlington/Hamilton location could be spectacular, given the right design. Some here just want to see it in Toronto at all cost, completely ignoring the fact that there are tourist sites throughout Ontario that actually get more visitors than sites in Toronto. A Toronto location will not automatically confer success.

Even within Toronto there are far better locations and concepts for a potential aquarium than this one... although, admittedly I must wait to see the final design, obviously.

As Ramako points out, the exterior is a huge upgrade on what they've done in MB and Gatlinberg and as I said before, I can't imagine Ripley's would build something here that would be a joke. I get the sense that they understand what they're dealing with in a market like this. Also consider that people like Adam Vaughn have had their noses in this and I'm sure are looking out for Toronto best interest. Considering the size of this aquarium, I don't see why or how you can assume that this would be second-rate, unless you're expecting vasts tanks of goldfish.

Sure an aquarium on the lake would make sense, but that shouldn't detract from how good this aquarium could be in this location. Also, what's tacky about having it at the base of the CN Tower? It's an underutilized space beside a building that already attracts thousands of people everyday. I've long maintained that something should be at the base, and if it's an aquarium, then great. The idea that people can hit two attractions in one spot will be very appealing.

Also, Toronto or Niagara Falls (and Ottawa) are the tourism champs of this province. I'd like to know what other locales are attracting multi-millions annually? Off the top of my head I can only think of one attraction outside of Toronto and Niagara Falls that attracts 1million+ people and that's the Museum of Civilization in Ottawa. Sorry to say but if an attraction can't survive in Toronto or Niagara Falls, then it won't survive in Burlington or Whitby or Kingston or...

 

[Tewder]

As Ramako points out, the exterior is a huge upgrade on what they've done in MB and Gatlinberg and as I said before, I can't imagine Ripley's would build something here that would be a joke.

Well, see, I think I would have to disagree on this. The Ripley's design for Toronto does feel schlocky to me. Granted, it is more up-to-date schlock than the other aquariums you mention but that's just because it is more recent. Their treatment and execution of this pedestrian design will likely be just as ham-handed as that of the clumsy designs of the older aquariums. Why would you expect more? Why do you believe they're going to think, hey this is Toronto lets spend more on quality design and finishings for this super hip city! Unfortunately, that's not their business model and that's not how this works... and don't get me started on that signage.

Sure an aquarium on the lake would make sense, but that shouldn't detract from how good this aquarium could be in this location. Also, what's tacky about having it at the base of the CN Tower? It's an underutilized space beside a building that already attracts thousands of people everyday. I've long maintained that something should be at the base, and if it's an aquarium, then great. The idea that people can hit two attractions in one spot will be very appealing....

This is error in judgement #1, of many for this concept. The fact that it is not beside the lake, and the fact that it is stuck onto another tourist trap, and the fact that it is Ripley's... all paint an unflattering picture of just what kind of aquarium this is going to be, which is to say one step above Marineland. I don't think this is what anybody in Toronto has been waiting for all these years. Could be wrong though.

Also, Toronto or Niagara Falls (and Ottawa) are the tourism champs of this province. I'd like to know what other locales are attracting multi-millions annually? Off the top of my head I can only think of one attraction outside of Toronto and Niagara Falls that attracts 1million+ people and that's the Museum of Civilization in Ottawa. Sorry to say but if an attraction can't survive in Toronto or Niagara Falls, then it won't survive in Burlington or Whitby or Kingston or ....

... but it's far more complicated than that and you should know. Of course Toronto gets millions of visitors but not necessarily each and every 'attraction' is seeing them. Many 'tourists' are coming to Toronto on business, to visit family, to go to the theatre or dine, or to puke in the streets of the entertainment district. They are not all clamouring to Fort York or to ride the hippo boats. Yes, the CN Tower gets lots of people and so does the Eaton Centre but there attractions outside the city that also get lots of visitors. Stratford Festival? 1,000 Islands? Parliament Buildings? Niagara Falls? Wonderland? Muskoka? We can go on... and as for sites with more than a million visitors, with just a cursery search I found Upper Canada Village which is also designated a three star site by the Michelin green guide. (http://www.webtechcanada.com/parks/VisitorCentre.pdf).

The Monterey Bay Aquarium, one of the very best in the world, is in a city about the size of Burlington...

and one which is farther from San Francisco than Burlington is from Toronto.

To make a go of it in Burlington, an Aquarium would have to be a landmark destination, something spectacular, that wouldn't just be a stop on the way to Niagara Falls for people. It is entirely possible to do that, it's just that no-one has any money to do that...

Unfortunately the only funding source for an Aquarium anywhere in the Golden Horseshoe right now is from an American entertainment/amusement provider, and they are proposing to spend their budget in a place where they see their greatest possible return.

42

Great points Interchange. I've been to Monterey and it's a great facility that people the world over will venture outside of San Fran too. Yes, the drive is gorgeous but so could the drive to Niagara be for many.

... and I agree that the concept of a Burlington aquarium is a pipe dream, but that with a landmark design it could be something truly spectacular for the region.

 

[jn_12]

Well, see, I think I would have to disagree on this. The Ripley's design for Toronto does feel schlocky to me. Granted, it is more up-to-date schlock than the other aquariums you mention but that's just because it is more recent. Their treatment and execution of this pedestrian design will likely be just as ham-handed as that of the clumsy designs of the older aquariums. Why would you expect more? Why do you believe they're going to think, hey this is Toronto lets spend more on quality design and finishings for this super hip city! Unfortunately, that's not their business model and that's not how this works... and don't get me started on that signage.

Well it's easy to say that you feel it is a schlocky design because you're in disagreement about the proposal. If I said it was the greaterst design I've ever seen, my opinion would be worth as much as yours. Design is subjective. I've already explained why I think Ripley's will do more with this site: they probably see this as a launching pad for other projects in other big markets. If it's a flop, they're basically stuck with their podunk backwater aquariums.

This is error in judgement #1, of many for this concept. The fact that it is not beside the lake, and the fact that it is stuck onto another tourist trap, and the fact that it is Ripley's... all paint an unflattering picture of just what kind of aquarium this is going to be, which is to say one step above Marineland. I don't think this is what anybody in Toronto has been waiting for all these years. Could be wrong though.

And I think you are wrong. The location was available and enticing and I already explained what I think Ripley's approach will be. If you really think it'll be one step up from Marineland (which isn't really even an aquarium) then I say it'll be one step down from Atlanta. Both are equally valid since we haven't seen any plans yet. Also, you haven't really suggested what makes for a good aquarium. I'd think that diversity of species, large tanks and so on would be good indicators and we haven't seen anything about those other than that there will be sharks (which is pretty cool for most people). I think you're just getting worked up over the Ripley brand and making big assumptions based on it despite the fact you can't even tell me what differentiates a good aquarium from a bad one.

... but it's far more complicated than that and you should know. Of course Toronto gets millions of visitors but not necessarily each and every 'attraction' is seeing them. Many 'tourists' are coming to Toronto on business, to visit family, to go to the theatre or dine, or to puke in the streets of the entertainment district. They are not all clamouring to Fort York or to ride the hippo boats. Yes, the CN Tower gets lots of people and so does the Eaton Centre but there attractions outside the city that also get lots of visitors. Stratford Festival? 1,000 Islands? Parliament Buildings? Niagara Falls? Wonderland? Muskoka? We can go on... and as for sites with more than a million visitors, with just a cursery search I found Upper Canada Village which is also designated a three star site by the Michelin green guide. (http://www.webtechcanada.com/parks/VisitorCentre.pdf).

Actually, Upper Canada Village doesn't get a million people. If you read page 2 it says that the entire Commission gets 1million people and it includes: Upper Canada Village, 12 major day-use beach sites and campgrounds, Fort Henry National Historic Site of Canada, Long Sault Parkway (between Long Sault and Ingleside), Upper Canada Golf Course 1000 Islands Parkway (between Brockville and Gananoque), Crysler Park Marina 100 km of waterfront on the St. Lawrence River, Upper Canada Migratory Bird Sanctuary over 30 km of bike paths, Crysler’s Farm Battlefield (adjacent to Upper Canada Village). Sure, if you want to stretch things out over a 200km corridor and lump them in together then go for it, but the idea that Upper Canada Village is attracting 1 million people annually isn't right.

Also, I said outside of Niagara Falls and Toronto, so Marineland and Wonderland (if you want to argue if it's a toronto location go for it but I'm not bothering) are already accounted for. Stratford Festival had 500k last year, Muskoka gets around 750k/year. I take numbers like the ones for Muskoka where attendance can't really be counted with a grain of salt because even Oakville apparently has 1 million people visit it annually according to the Premier Ranked reports, which is a bit absurd and probably uses the broadest definition of tourist possible. The fact is, the CN Tower by itself sees two-to-three times more people than Burlington does, so even if all of Toronto's visitors aren't going to the Tower everytime they visit, it isn't even necessary because it still outperforms entire cities and regions.

 

[Towered]

Clearly Burlington needs a supertall.