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

Peepers said:
The Toronto Star just published this article :

City aquarium project nears final approval
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/932475--city-aquarium-project-nears-final-approval?bn=1

According to the Star the three levels of government will contribute $30 Million in TAXPAYER money to this private venture (by Billionaire Jim Pattison).
Click to expand...

Well the local tax money going to this project is in the form of tax breaks. I'm pretty staunchly against corporate welfare but this does seem like it will be a great attraction and that's tax money we wouldn't be collecting anyway without the thing being built. As for the federal tax money, appears that will take the form of improvements to the leased land by the owner. To me thats a pretty reasonable request from the new tenant who will be paying a bunch of rent for many years to come, especially considereing the current state of the area and the tourist crowd they're trying to attract.
 
There's a parking lot across from the Dome that can be used for buses. As well, tour buses are always parked along Bremner already.

And, even if it's only 90,000 initially it's still bigger than aquariums that receive 1million+ people. It will be a great addition and it's great to hear the the area around the Tower/aquarium will be spruced up.

Oh I just realized this - how awesome is it that there's already this fountain right outside the aquarium?
26426933_7d203a8eeb.jpg
 
taal said:
Parking matters in North America ... it really does ... we want to cater to school groups with buses / large SUVs for suburban families ... as long as there is ample parking around and in very close proximity it will be OK - I think this is the case so I'm fine with this.
Click to expand...

Remember that the SkyDome has tons of parking for buses, and there are plenty of underground spaces at the convention centre and dome.

Also, there's no parking at all at the CN Tower, ROM, AGO, MLG, and very little in the ACC, every major bank tower, and at the CNE during the Ex. The lack of them never hurt or impeded their attendance.

Given that tourists will be one of the biggest target customers of the Aquarium, I'm not sure that parking spaces are quite as important as others may suggest.

EDIT: just saw that jn_12 & I were on the same wavelength.
 
Last edited:
jn_12 said:
As far as I'm aware it's only you that is calling this a 3rd rate facility. You might as well suggest that we not fund the ROM because it isn't the British Museum or the Louvre.
Click to expand...

The ROM is a provincial institution, not a tacky tourist attraction.

jn_12 said:
Fact is that this is going to be a very significant aquarium and your desires for an Atlanta-esque aquarium are absurd. You need to realize that the difference between this aquarium and the Atlanta aquarium is that Atlanta's aquarium is their main tourist attraction. In our case, this aquarium will only be an attraction that adds depth to our product and hopefully offers people a reason to stay another day. A similar example is the New England Aquarium in Boston, which is by no means the quintessential attraction in Boston but is still very popular (1.3-1.5 million visitors annually) despite being half the size of this proposal. We're going to get a really good attraction here and it's certainly not 3rd rate in any sense. If you want grandiose and wish that we only have the biggest and most overwhelming attractions, move to Dubai.

Also, sure an aquarium at Ontario Place makes sense, but how wuold that location be better? You're talking about an aquarium at the foot of the city's biggest attraction. How can that not be successful and how would an Ontario Place site compete with that? We now have a chance to have two awesome attractions because the aquarium won't be at Ontario Place. Ontario Place can now be reimagined to be an attraction worthy of people staying another day to visit in addition to this new aquarium. It's not exactly rocket science to determine that two great attractions are better to have than one.
Click to expand...

If taxpayers are contributing, whether through tax breaks or not, then we should be demanding higher standards and better design. I understand your point that this is just about creating a tourist attraction, and whether mediocre or not it will likely do well if plopped at the foot of an existing tourist attraction that already does well. Can't argue with that logic, and it certainly does seem to be in line with the kind of thinking prevalent in Toronto's culture that embraces mediocrity or the second rate (or third rate?)... Still, I am in the camp that says we can do better and would rather envision a cluster of sites around Toronto harbour, i.e. the Tower, a revitalized Canada Malting site, a revitalized Ontario Place with a state of the art, first class waterfront acquarium, Canada Place etc., etc... than a cluster of mediocre attractions in one location. Just me.
 
Tewder said:
The ROM is a provincial institution, not a tacky tourist attraction.
Click to expand...
well Peepers problem was tax dollars going towards it. He should be concerned that our tax dollars aren't going towards the biggest and best museum in the world as well, no?


Tewder said:
If taxpayers are contributing, whether through tax breaks or not, then we should be demanding higher standards and better design. I understand your point that this is just about creating a tourist attraction, and whether mediocre or not it will likely do well if plopped at the foot of an existing tourist attraction that already does well. Can't argue with that logic, and it certainly does seem to be in line with the kind of thinking prevalent in Toronto's culture that embraces mediocrity or the second rate (or third rate?)... Still, I am in the camp that says we can do better and would rather envision a cluster of sites around Toronto harbour, i.e. the Tower, a revitalized Canada Malting site, a revitalized Ontario Place with a state of the art, first class waterfront acquarium, Canada Place etc., etc... than a cluster of mediocre attractions in one location. Just me.
Click to expand...
The point is though that just because this isn't Atlanta (the biggest and best aquarium in the world) doesn't mean it is mediocre. If that's the case then everything in Toronto apart from the CN Tower is mediocre (though now that it's been surpassed by Dubai...). I've already pointed out that this aquarium will be bigger than aquariums that are considered very good (New England for example). I would also say that there's nothing wrong with the design of the building. It looks fine to me (in fact to me it looks like a whale which would be quite apropriate) and the design will always be subjective anyways. The concerns about tackiness are completely unfounded as well given that we don't know what it will look like inside, though the news today of North America's largest underwater tunnel is pretty cool as well as the concept around the jellyfish.
 
From the Toronto Star article:

"Gordon McIvor said, though, that Ottawa will spend money on landscaping, signs and other features to dramatically improve the John St., Front St. and Bremner Blvd. entrances to the tower/aquarium site."

Positive ripple effects, so that's good news.
 
I'll leave it to you guys to argue over the merits of tax breaks but has anybody read the article? This is going to be a top rated aquarium with some exclusive attractions such as "the World's longest underwater tunnel" with a moving walkway. This isn't some back water tacky tourist attraction. We're getting something really good here. I can't wait.
 
The last time I was in Seattle I noticed some decent seafood restaurants right near their aquarium. If the same thing happens here, then this would be a benefit!

(incidentally, I don't believe Seattle's aquarium has any parking ...)
 
Even I find the connection between a major aquarium and good seafood restaurants a little creepy.

I think Seattle's has more to do with it being on the ocean - Puget Sound's narrow confines notwithstanding - whereas no-one seems to be in a rush to trumpet Lake Ontario's delectables in particular.
 
jn_12 said:
The point is though that just because this isn't Atlanta (the biggest and best aquarium in the world) doesn't mean it is mediocre.
Click to expand...

I agree that Toronto's aquarium doesn't have to be 'bigger' than Atlanta's to be an important aquarium. As long as we are among the larger and more significant aquariums, quality and uniqueness are ultimately far more important.


jn_12 said:
If that's the case then everything in Toronto apart from the CN Tower is mediocre (though now that it's been surpassed by Dubai...). I've already pointed out that this aquarium will be bigger than aquariums that are considered very good (New England for example). I would also say that there's nothing wrong with the design of the building. It looks fine to me (in fact to me it looks like a whale which would be quite apropriate) and the design will always be subjective anyways. The concerns about tackiness are completely unfounded as well given that we don't know what it will look like inside, though the news today of North America's largest underwater tunnel is pretty cool as well as the concept around the jellyfish.
Click to expand...

Concerns of tackiness kind of go with the Ripley's brand, however, and it is the whole concept/business model of this project that raises doubt as to the overall quality (including design), which is to say the whole 'tourist-trap' approach at the foot of the CN Tower as opposed to a more meaningful waterfront approach. The one sees an aquarium as a means of wringing more money out of tourists in the area anyways whereas the other sees an aquarium as a respected, stand-alone generator of tourists/visitors and locals to the Toronto waterfront.

Having said all this I am happy to hear that Ripley's has announced some interesting/unique features, which shows they may at least be thinking 'big' about this one. At the end of the day if it is going to be a tourist trap then hopefully it will be a decent one.
 
WiddleBittyKitty said:
Even I find the connection between a major aquarium and good seafood restaurants a little creepy.

I think Seattle's has more to do with it being on the ocean - Puget Sound's narrow confines notwithstanding - whereas no-one seems to be in a rush to trumpet Lake Ontario's delectables in particular.
Click to expand...

Zebra mussles anyone?
 
btw, the aquarium will have the same, if not extremely similar set up as another Ripley's aquarium. I can't remember where...Maybe Myrtle Beach...shoot I can't remember.
 
^ Any proof of this?

Tewder said:
Concerns of tackiness kind of go with the Ripley's brand, however, and it is the whole concept/business model of this project that raises doubt as to the overall quality (including design), which is to say the whole 'tourist-trap' approach at the foot of the CN Tower as opposed to a more meaningful waterfront approach. The one sees an aquarium as a means of wringing more money out of tourists in the area anyways whereas the other sees an aquarium as a respected, stand-alone generator of tourists/visitors and locals to the Toronto waterfront.

Having said all this I am happy to hear that Ripley's has announced some interesting/unique features, which shows they may at least be thinking 'big' about this one. At the end of the day if it is going to be a tourist trap then hopefully it will be a decent one.
Click to expand...
Well as I've said before, this is Ripley's first chance at an aquarium in a high calibre city. They've already said they want it to be the launching point for other aquariums in other high profile locales. Given this goal, I would have to think that they realize that what works in Gatlinberg probably isn't what will work in Toronto (or New York, or London or...). I'd think that they would understand that the bar in terms of quality and sophistication would need to be raised. Sure, the brand is tacky but that doesn't mean everything they do will be and must be. I'd prefer to wait until I see interior rederings before I judge.
 
My biggest criticism of this proposal is that only about 60% of it will be built at first despite substantial direct and indirect government assistance. It comes across to me as unnecessarly timid when bigger will almost certainly be better.

In terms of any alleged "tackiness" or "tourist trap" concerns, that ship has already sailed. It's not being built on the Vancouver Aquarium model as a public research institution: it's going to be a private for-profit venture aimed primarily at families and kids and tourists, and its operator will be free to conduct its business as it sees fit. All you can ask is that it enhances the public realm of its context and that it's a solid attraction. It reasonably appears to do both.

The renderings should decisively put to rest any fears of the worst: it's clearly not going to be the Houston Aquarium

But, unfortunately for some, it ain't ever gonna be the kind of "meaningful" place on the Pacific Ocean that you can go visit on your boat.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top