Waterfront: General Topics

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

You aren't! I've consider Birmingham, Belfast, Glasgow and Leeds in the UK. I also want to visit Chicago and Los Angeles. Canada, Halifax seems nice, as does Victoria. I also want to visit Ottawa, their BRT system is to notch.

As for this, its true. You want Toronto to succeed so bad, but they keep messing it up. It's happening way too often. This BS with the transit should have never happend. This waterfront plan is awful for so many reasons.

hahahaha... You'd move to Belfast or Glasgow or Ottawa because of a park that won't get built for years? You'd move to Ottawa because they have better BUS RAPID TRANSIT?!? Way to keep things in perspective...

 

[CanadianNational]

I really think they should stick with the original plan. We've got a 10-year EA approved and taxpayer paid-for plan that's ready to go.
Doug Ford has made it perfectly clear that this new plan is a compromise between the original and a cash grab. Right up front, he's said it. It's not even like he's hiding it! So - another study, etc., etc.
Are we so worn out from the Ford(s)'s debacles so far, that we're just going to swoon into this one? There's no need to rush, and no need to push a decision on this. ESPECIALLY when that push is coming from Doug Ford. He's like someone invited to a party who walks right up to the cake and takes a handful.

The amount of parkland in the new plan is drastically reduced, and most of it's charming sinuosity and generosity of space has been effectively eradicated. What was luxurious and organic looking has been reduced to something far more utilitarian - ending in something that looks like the second coming of the Keating Channel.
Less parkland in the 'interior' of the Portlands is only part of the problem. The main upset in the new plan seems to be the eradication of the waterfront park, and it's planned replacement by more rectilinear blocks of development. I think that even if the park space and wetlands around a renaturalized Don are somewhat reduced, the Harbourfont Park has got to stay. No substantial inner park on the inner harbour has succeeded since the ideas were first proposed with the Walks and Gardens attempt in 1857. Now, another politician, for the sake of money is trying to make sure we'll never get it.

If the city was serious about giving us an amazing park - it wouldn't stop at Cherry Street. A whole section of the Portlands could be naturalized from the Harbour back to the Don Roadway. So this isn't asking for 'too much'. Considering the island airport - which, arguably, isn't even supposed to be there - takes up many multiple times as much space as this block of land, it's not too much to ask for at all. To look for a lovely park facing the inner harbour isn't some unnatural, selfish dream - but I think someone trying to talk the city into 'rationally' giving away the finest land in the core to private uses is. I think we need to give our heads a shake and see that Mr. Ford is not only not acting in the city's best interest, he's pulling a fast one. Are we so relieved he didn't steal the whole thing the first time, we feel like we're being done a favour now? He's guilting us into thinking that we're being profligate, and that pleasure is out of our reach. He's drawing on the city's history of unhappy gridiron dealings to tell us this is what we have to expect from business as usual. That he's in line with how things operate here, not us. It's not only erroneous, it's insulting.

I sincerely hope we can get it together and save at least this much of the city's harbour from the forces it has always been sacrificed to - haste, miserliness, speculation and greed. Oh - and another portly milkhead trying to screw the city over for a few bucks on their float through power. I'd like to see he and his brother actually accomplish some city building first - say, on the central waterfront? - before interfering elsewhere, and screwing up more lovely things.

 

[ttk77]

I'm in total agreement that the original plan is far superior. I'd rather they have to spend more time finding the additional funds and doing it right than doing a rush job and giving Torontonians less than the best possible solution. With the huge time estimate for fully building up this area a few extra years on top to do it right is just fine by me. Where is CodeBlueTO on this? I know they've been involved in the public consultations, but I have yet to hear their opinions on the new proposal.

There's a good article in TheStar this morning addressing the proposed changes: http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...reated-toronto-s-infamous-wall-of-condos?bn=1

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

hahahaha... You'd move to Belfast or Glasgow or Ottawa because of a park that won't get built for years? You'd move to Ottawa because they have better BUS RAPID TRANSIT?!? Way to keep things in perspective...

lol I've wanted to explore after university for some time my friend, this waterfront decision just dissapoints me, and accelerates my plans, that's all.

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

lol I've wanted to explore after university for some time my friend, this waterfront decision just dissapoints me, and accelerates my plans, that's all.

Going walkabout is one thing. Moving to Glasgow because of your personal disappointment about the positioning of the Don mouth is quite another. And, completely off-topic:

>> Birmingham, Belfast, Glasgow and Leeds in the UK. I also want to visit Chicago and Los Angeles. Canada, Halifax seems nice, as does Victoria. I also want to visit Ottawa, their BRT system is to notch.

THAT is an eclectic -- I'd go as far as to say eccentric -- list of places to visit. If it's not too personal, how in heck did you come up with it?

 

[Ladies Mile]

Going walkabout is one thing. Moving to Glasgow because of your personal disappointment about the positioning of the Don mouth is quite another. And, completely off-topic:

>> Birmingham, Belfast, Glasgow and Leeds in the UK. I also want to visit Chicago and Los Angeles. Canada, Halifax seems nice, as does Victoria. I also want to visit Ottawa, their BRT system is to notch.

THAT is an eclectic -- I'd go as far as to say eccentric -- list of places to visit. If it's not too personal, how in heck did you come up with it?

Four major UK cities and the top two US cities after New York plus two cities known for a laid-back atmosphere is "eccentric?"

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Four major UK cities and the top two US cities after New York plus two cities known for a laid-back atmosphere is "eccentric?"

Four mid-major UK cities, but not London, Edinburgh, Dublin, or Manchester. Chicago and LA, but not San Francisco, NYC, Washington, Philadelphia. Halifax, Victoria, Ottawa, but not Vancouver, Calgary, or Montreal. Yes, I would characterize it as eclectic (as in, 'combining elements from a variety of sources', as I do not see a pattern (other than English-speaking and not the major tourist cities in any of the three nations)), and possibly eccentric, as in 'departing from a recognized, conventional, or established norm or pattern.' Which is why I asked the question, as I was genuinely interested in the thought process that came up with those choices.

 

[Ladies Mile]

Four mid-major UK cities, but not London, Edinburgh, Dublin, or Manchester. Chicago and LA, but not San Francisco, NYC, Washington, Philadelphia. Halifax, Victoria, Ottawa, but not Vancouver, Calgary, or Montreal. Yes, I would characterize it as eclectic (as in, 'combining elements from a variety of sources', as I do not see a pattern (other than English-speaking and not the major tourist cities in any of the three nations)), and possibly eccentric, as in 'departing from a recognized, conventional, or established norm or pattern.' Which is why I asked the question, as I was genuinely interested in the thought process that came up with those choices.

"English-speaking and not the major tourist cities in any of the three nations" seems to be enough of a pattern for me. I didn't find it eccentric and was simply surprised you used the word. Now "Lagos, Newport, RI, Lodz, Casablanca, Buffalo, Shanghai and Old Havana" I would find eccentric.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Going walkabout is one thing. Moving to Glasgow because of your personal disappointment about the positioning of the Don mouth is quite another. And, completely off-topic:

>> Birmingham, Belfast, Glasgow and Leeds in the UK. I also want to visit Chicago and Los Angeles. Canada, Halifax seems nice, as does Victoria. I also want to visit Ottawa, their BRT system is to notch.

THAT is an eclectic -- I'd go as far as to say eccentric -- list of places to visit. If it's not too personal, how in heck did you come up with it?

Well I have family in Birmingham, Leeds I just want to take a walk and Glasgow I was supposed to go the school there but that fell through and I ended up at u of t.

Chicago. I want to visit. I know everyone says its dangerous, but it has just as many good sides. Los Angeles, I want to visit because its a complete change from what I'm used. My moms cousin also lives out there.

Halifax and Victoria, I want to see daily life in Canada's smaller centers. Ottawa because .. I don't know, I want to visit.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Four mid-major UK cities, but not London, Edinburgh, Dublin, or Manchester. Chicago and LA, but not San Francisco, NYC, Washington, Philadelphia. Halifax, Victoria, Ottawa, but not Vancouver, Calgary, or Montreal. Yes, I would characterize it as eclectic (as in, 'combining elements from a variety of sources', as I do not see a pattern (other than English-speaking and not the major tourist cities in any of the three nations)), and possibly eccentric, as in 'departing from a recognized, conventional, or established norm or pattern.' Which is why I asked the question, as I was genuinely interested in the thought process that came up with those choices.

Well Birmingham is the second largest city

 

[Riverdale Rink Rat]

Well Birmingham is the second largest city

Your first answer made it clear: personal connections (family, etc.) Thx.

 

[SunriseChampion]

CanadianNational: thank you.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

When will Council be voting on this?