Sir Novelty Fashion
Senior Member
Mayor Ford's not gonna like this one bit.
|
|
|
Torontovibe
Senior Member
I'm sure Ford will cancel this as soon as he becomes mayor.
insertrealname
Active Member
O.K., I had not yet read that report in detail, I must have skipped that paragraph. I wonder if those estimated costs are in any public document?
Still, I am fed up with the lack of ambition in Toronto's planning processes: sure, it's always easier to build new stuff, to erase or ignore the history embodied in buildings, to go into cost-analysis as a primary criterion of public investment (which certainly is important), but the over-all Toronto approach of incrementalism & tweaking does not seem to get us very far toward the kind city dynamism and function that we want. O.K. I'll stop moaning now...
Still, I am fed up with the lack of ambition in Toronto's planning processes: sure, it's always easier to build new stuff, to erase or ignore the history embodied in buildings, to go into cost-analysis as a primary criterion of public investment (which certainly is important), but the over-all Toronto approach of incrementalism & tweaking does not seem to get us very far toward the kind city dynamism and function that we want. O.K. I'll stop moaning now...
Irishmonk
Senior Member
How would he cancel it? He only has one vote on council and he's practically alienated every single councillor. That hyperventilating dog is going to discover that his bark is a lot more effective than his slobbering, increasingly toothless bite.
insertrealname
Active Member
Rob Ford will cancel everything once elected. Quantum mechanical laws will fail. Time will stop. Well, something like that... I doubt we will notice any change, unless Ford really gets Council onboard his initiatives--whatever they will be.
jn_12
Senior Member
I've already said that we here have an interest in urban design. It's what unites us on UT. But, in the grand scheme of things, people would rather have 8 minimalistic rinks than 4 in a Taj Mahal. This isn't comparable to the differences in BRT vs HRT. That has to do with performance. In this case, a hockey rink is a hockey rink. People's enjoyment and use of the facility will not be dictated by how fancy it is and if it meets LEED standards (trust me on that. I've probably forgotten about more arenas than you've ever been in).
I think my concerns are legit, and I feel as though those who are in favour of this are merely looking at it from the lense that we use to look at every other project (from a design perspective). That's fair, but when it comes to recreation, quantity is far important since it allows for more people to use the facility. That's not to say this site would fit 8 arenas, but the report says we need 6 new rinks by 2011 and 12 by 2031 (which I think is a low estimate). If the cost of this building restricts our ability to build the other rinks, that's a huge problem from a recreational perspective.
I'm not sure where I said I would build above/below the rinks. Didn't the original plan that was shot down include a parking lot around the building? Perhaps in reading about other facilities I got it mixed up with another one because I was under the assumption that there was a parking lot surrounding the building, which is what I meant by having an opportunity to sell that off in the future.
Rowe
Active Member
Taj Mahal and ice rinks are different from BRT and subways?
If there is going to be an ice rink on the waterfront, it must follow design standards. The facts brought up about the ‘lack ‘of recreation spaces are not the only issue in the city. You could easily compare this to affordable housing. The TCHC is a government agency, its new buildings are LEED cert. and lets face it... TCHC pushes out some of Toronto's most beautiful buildings. But also there will be affordable housing on the waterfront, but do you think it will look like 'Regent Park'? No. Because city building has to move forward not backwards like you seem to be stating for sporting facilities.
I'm all for more spaces for the community... arts, sports, and education but this is the Toronto's Waterfront and design standards must be upheld. That's why we have architects, landscape architects and urban planners and designers.
Tulse
Senior Member
I completely disagree -- a lot of people's enjoyment of the waterfront would be impaired by plopping a huge utilitarian structure there. By your argument we shouldn't have such wonderful buildings as the R. C. Harris Filtration Plant, or Lillian Smith Library, or the Toronto Police Headquarters, as all these buildings serve utilitarian civic functions and any taxpayer money spent on design prevents spending on that service. Part of what makes the city enjoyable to live in is the built fabric, the care that is taken to house even the most basic functions (such as water purification) in interesting and beautiful buildings. And this is especially true at the waterfront, which is just now being attending to after decades of neglect. A huge flat rink with a vast expanse of concrete parking lot is completely contrary to the design aesthetic being promulgated in the waterfront's redevelopment, and building such as structure would indeed negatively impact on how enjoyable the waterfront and the city would be.
spider
Senior Member
This proposal is the wrong building in the wrong locations on so many levels it is breathtaking.
The designers and proponents obviously have no history or understanding of the segment of the community that this project is meant to serve. The location was probably chosen because some funding is contingent on it being located here. The location couldn't be more difficult to access by it's presumed user group or farther away than most of them. There is a reason the commercial rink complex people aren't lining up to build down there or anywhere else, the market is saturated. If this complex is proposed to bridge the perceived gap between the commercial sense of saturation and the reported need for more facilities by the local minor hockey people the rinks (note the plural) should be built where the people are not in some remote unattractive wasteland that is underserved by transit for the very few who use transit in this demograph.
About the glass walls, hockey players and the spectators are too involved in the activity to care much about the landscape, pleasure skaters should be watching where they are going not trying to figure out where the Leslie spit is located.
The project is currently estimated to cost in the area of 88 million dollars, if the homeless shelter and St Clair street car disasters are instructive we should expect a final cost of maybe 130 million dollars for a building to house a sport that is not growing but in decline in our fair city.
The designers and proponents obviously have no history or understanding of the segment of the community that this project is meant to serve. The location was probably chosen because some funding is contingent on it being located here. The location couldn't be more difficult to access by it's presumed user group or farther away than most of them. There is a reason the commercial rink complex people aren't lining up to build down there or anywhere else, the market is saturated. If this complex is proposed to bridge the perceived gap between the commercial sense of saturation and the reported need for more facilities by the local minor hockey people the rinks (note the plural) should be built where the people are not in some remote unattractive wasteland that is underserved by transit for the very few who use transit in this demograph.
About the glass walls, hockey players and the spectators are too involved in the activity to care much about the landscape, pleasure skaters should be watching where they are going not trying to figure out where the Leslie spit is located.
The project is currently estimated to cost in the area of 88 million dollars, if the homeless shelter and St Clair street car disasters are instructive we should expect a final cost of maybe 130 million dollars for a building to house a sport that is not growing but in decline in our fair city.
Last edited:
Irishmonk
Senior Member
The cost of the St Clair streetcar line is only indicative of the price of other transit projects, of which the Waterfront complex is not. The Corus building, which the city built on time and within the budget, is a much more comparable project.
Also, please cite some sources for your claim that hockey is a declining sport in this city. If you have information that the city doesn't, perhaps you should e-mail them (before calling Rob Ford's office).
tkip
Active Member
I keep hearing from other people that hockey is on the decline due to the cost of equipment and fees. Been told the costs have gone through the roof in th recent years. Also heard them talk about this on CFRB.
spider
Senior Member
Irishmonk,
I suggest you Google "gthl growth" for data on hockey growth in Toronto. This is the best http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/our...r-hockey-growth-slows-to-near-standstill.html
The GTHL, in it's website and Media Kit cites 20,000 REP players in the early 1960's when players had to live in Toronto as opposed to only 10,000 today including clubs and individual players from outside Toronto.
Local house leagues, where they still exist, have teams with 10 or 12 player rosters whereas in the not so distant past each team carried 16 or 17 kids and there were more teams and there was a waiting list.
How do I know this stuff? 20 years of coaching at all levels in the 70's and 80's and grand children in the system now.
Why do I care? because I see just plain stupid solutions to a problem offered by people who have no clue what they are proposing, only that it is big and shiny.
More stuff the City doesn't know about phantom ice shortages.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...w-to-mens-recreational-hockey/article1672836/
I suggest you Google "gthl growth" for data on hockey growth in Toronto. This is the best http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/our...r-hockey-growth-slows-to-near-standstill.html
The GTHL, in it's website and Media Kit cites 20,000 REP players in the early 1960's when players had to live in Toronto as opposed to only 10,000 today including clubs and individual players from outside Toronto.
Local house leagues, where they still exist, have teams with 10 or 12 player rosters whereas in the not so distant past each team carried 16 or 17 kids and there were more teams and there was a waiting list.
How do I know this stuff? 20 years of coaching at all levels in the 70's and 80's and grand children in the system now.
Why do I care? because I see just plain stupid solutions to a problem offered by people who have no clue what they are proposing, only that it is big and shiny.
More stuff the City doesn't know about phantom ice shortages.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...w-to-mens-recreational-hockey/article1672836/
Last edited:
jn_12
Senior Member
I'm all for good design (as I've said before, I'm a planner), but sometimes I think it would be absurd to hold everything to the highest standards. I disagree with your assessment of TCHC. If I needed public housing I'd much rather they built quantity over quality because it will impact the most people. I'd rather have somewhere to live than watch someone else live in a nice place. Same goes for rinks. I'd rather be playing than watching others play in a nice rink.
But, we have a shortage in rinks. We don't have a shortage of filtration plants, libraries or police offices. It'd be akin to buying the Mona Lisa before having an art gallery. If we didn't have such a backlog I'd be all for this, but we need quantity far more than quality at this point.
Adult leagues and womens leagues are bigger than ever. More people are playing beyond their minor hockey days, which is something we didn't see quite as much decades ago. The improvements to the Lakeshore arena didn't put a dent in the city's need for ice. While I agree that less kids are probably playing at the Rep level, I think that has more to do with the stratification of the game and the associated cost of not just running a Rep team (particularly at the AAA level) but also the cost incurred by parents.
Rowe
Active Member
Right, lets give our most vulnerable citizens low quality housing. They don't deserve to live in high quality housing. Have you ever been inside some of the 'older' public/affordable housing? The conditions are horrible. Poor air quality, mold, aging utilities... these seniors, students, physically and mentally disabled, and ethnic minorities have some of the worst living conditions in Toronto. Yet you’re advocating 'more, more, more' rather than quality housing for low- to moderate-income citizens. As someone who is in a planning degree, I'm truly shocked. We are taught that we work for the public and as someone who will work for the public, I will not settling for poor quality.
I understand completely where you are coming from for more of 'whatever.' We need more schools, are you advocating we build poor quality schools just because we need more of them? Seniors are a large growing demographic; yet there is such a low amount of senior-orientated housing... do they deserve low quality too?
The price of repairing the damage of low quality buildings is massive. Refitting buildings is always more expensive than just building it right. Who’s going to pay for all the expensive upgrades to your "quantity over quality" rinks?
City building is never about just filling a quota.. its about building for the public. The public want transit, affordable housing, parks, and in your case.. ink rinks. But giving them poor quality shows a huge waste of the publics money. Yes 88M is a bit expensive for 4 ice rinks, but the public will have something amazing to be proud of.
Some 'Wal-mart looking' ice rink on the waterfront will just upset the public and the purpose of developing the waterfront.
spider
Senior Member
So, as long as it is big and shiny, it doesn't matter what it costs and that it couldn't possibly be built in a less accessible location. You should realize that very few people, if any, will be living in this area and admiring the Taj Mahal of pucks for decades.