Johnny Au
Senior Member
If Toronto wants to host a Super Bowl, the stadium can have "removable" roofing, as Toronto does not need two stadia with retractable roofs.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Southcore
- Start date
sixrings
Senior Member
I have argued this for a long time for the parks sake but also for Sheppard to potentially get a Crosstown lrt or a subway extension.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Agree - the Downsview site would make sense, if it is big enough for both the sports complex and the Athletes' Village (and I believe Downsview is the highest point in terms of topographical relief in Toronto - which can be used to great effect).
Hearn should be another venue node along with the Shipping Channel.
AoD
Hearn should be another venue node along with the Shipping Channel.
AoD
christiesplits
Senior Member
While I'm still undecided on the 2024 bid, I agree that if the bid does come to fruition, that Downsview should be looked at as the main site. It would certainly help galvanize regional support for the bid by making the Olympics more centrally located thus not being viewed as a "downtown pet project." It would also have convenient transportation nodes - TTC, GO Transit, 401 and 400 - to get to outdoor sites north of the city for Mountain Biking, kayaking, etc.
And as AoD notes, the East Waterfront would still likely host a number of events with the Pan Am facilities, in addition to other downtown facilities like the Rogers Centre, ACC, BMO and Ricoh.
And as AoD notes, the East Waterfront would still likely host a number of events with the Pan Am facilities, in addition to other downtown facilities like the Rogers Centre, ACC, BMO and Ricoh.
intoronto1125
Active Member
No Pan Am Facility would likely be used for a possible Olympics.
The East Waterfront option is attractive as almost all venues would be located downtown which could be a selling point for the bid.
The East Waterfront option is attractive as almost all venues would be located downtown which could be a selling point for the bid.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
York University actually has Toronto's highest point in terms of topographical relief at 208m.
TOperson
Active Member
Thing is, the Olympics do not bring the development that is good for/makes the most sense for the host city, just whatever the IOC wants for the games. Of course, the bidders don't say any of that when they are drumming up support.
So these discussions about which site would be good for what are moot.
So these discussions about which site would be good for what are moot.
mistercorporate
The Fruit of Discipline
One of the selling points of the games is that it will allow us to finally revitalize and redevelop the industrial parts of the portlands. It would also spur beautification (parks) and infrastructure development in that general region. Downsview would be a mistake in my opinion, just as having it far away from downtown was a mistake for Montreal.
sixrings
Senior Member
The portlands will be redeveloped either way. Downsview may have a plan but this would just stimulate that plan. PLus a NFL stadium doesn't NEED to be downtown since its only used for 8 games a year and often on Sundays.
Towered
Senior Member
Downsview might make some sense, but it really is too far from downtown, and even more problematic, it's by no means a "sexy" site in terms of convincing Olympic delegates - let's face it, the area (and most of North York in general) is still an unappealing, unattractive suburban wasteland. The only way it would have a chance is if all the surrounding neighbourhoods get re-zoned to high density mixed use. Detached homes, the odd towers in parks, and car-oriented strip plazas are no longer acceptable on our main streets.
junior43
Active Member
Hold on, let me get this straight. Rod Ford and Doug Ford are nucking futz to propose a ferris wheel and monorail (rapid transit) to the lower portlands, for a cost of several billions dollars. But, an Olympic Stadium (that could turn into a white elephant) is perfectrly acceptable (once you factor LRT to the location) for about the same potential cost???????
Is that what you're saying? Obviously, I oppose both options, just wondering why, this Olympic stadium is such a better idea than a Ferris Wheel? In the long term, at least we have a hope of recouping some expenses if it's a ferris wheel. If no NFL team shows up (very likely), we have a useless stadium......
Last edited:
TOperson
Active Member
We do? Are ferris wheels profitable? Is there a lot of untapped ferris wheel demand in this city?
But there are very few big chunks of land left in Toronto in which to build a true Olympic Park. City Place would have made a great site if we were having this discussion 20 years ago.
Downsview is unique for a suburban site because of the multitude of existing and potential transit options. The current subway terminus at Downsview, 3 subway stations within walking distance as of 2016, each at different points on the site, GO transit service that can be beefed up for the Olympics and for any sporting event being held there, and the possibility for a relatively minor Sheppard West Subway extension to make the site even more connected. Even the Portlands can't get that kind of transit connectivity. At best it would have an LRT line linking to Union and possibly the DRL and GO system at the Distillery District/West Donlands.
I can see the future stadium using the site topography to its advantage. A U shaped bowl with the south end nearly completely open, with the Olympic flame in front of the downtown skyline in the background. It would be quite the vantage point.
As for the whole "needs to be downtown" thing, when you look at most of the recent Olympic parks, they're more often than not built in what would be considered inner suburbs. It's quite rare to have an Olympic Park right downtown. Take Sydney for example. The Olympic Park there is 16km from the CBD, farther than Downsview is from downtown Toronto. Sydney is widely regarded as being one of the most successful modern Summer Games.
I'd also like to point out that building the Olympic Park at Downsview would lift the height restrictions on surrounding areas that has capped development around Yorkdale, north along Dufferin, and east and west along Sheppard. That would allow developers to better utilize land surrounding Spadina line stations.
Last edited:
sixrings
Senior Member
More transit and no more height restriction would make this side of Yonge much better. I am with you on this one.
TOperson
Active Member
Which is why hosting the games would mean displacing hundreds, possibly thousands, of homes and businesses. Which is exactly what has happened in every host city.
The IOC does not care what kinds of development would be good for the host city. Once the host city contract is signed, the IOC calls the shots. It overrides the laws, ALL of the laws. The local community has no recourse whatsoever to stop unwanted development.
There is literally no point in imagining how the games would be good for Toronto's development. We would get what the IOC decides.