Liking something is not sufficient evidence it should exist.
Even if it were, surely that would suggest that a democratic vote should settle it.
Given how few people use the Island Airport as a percentage of the population, but how many would enjoy the space as parkland or as housing............
I don't see the airport winning that vote.
****
Of course there is a value to the airport, primarily to the executive sector and a subset of senior civil servants.
But is that value the greatest/best value that could be achieved w/that site?
At the same time, lets note, lot of cities have closed their City centre airports.
Its not that common, nor necessary an amenity.
Its a convenience, for a minority of residents. Nothing more, nothing less.
Its not evil, its not angelic; its not good or bad; it just 'is'.
But its entirely fair to consider whether it should be; and if there are better alternatives.
I would certainly make the case that there are.
I have no objections to putting the issue to a vote, and following the outcome of such vote. For example, asking everyone who lives within 5km from the airport.
That said, those who are in favor of keeping the airport running will probably win.
People value choice, they want to have access to either Billy Bishop and Pearson, not just one option. The narrative that Billy Bishop only serves executives and isn't useful for ordinary residents, is not correct. Maybe that was the original marketing push and it stuck in public opinion, but it does not reflect the actual operation.
I flew out of Billy Bishop only twice in my life, once to Halifax, another time to Newark, but I was preparing in advance and checking prices for a few months. The Porter prices were consistently below the cheapest price I could get from Pearson to the same destination.
On the other hand, a park is not a bad idea. But, why instead of the airport. There exists the Toronto City Island park, and the small but somewhat green Musical Garden in the middle of the waterfront. To the west, you have Ontario Place lands that are currently underused; can park space be added there?
And for housing: first of all, it is hard to win a vote for something that will benefit future residents. Obviously, at the time the vote is held most of them do not know they will be future residents, and thus have no stake.
More generally, an island is probably not the best place for dense housing; providing the utilities and public transit there will be harder than in a number of inland locations. Why not increase the density around the existing subway stations first. I know in some cases it will be hard because of NYMBYism, but the opposition isn't uniformly strong everywhere. In some case, it is a matter of converting low-rise industrial areas to housing, then the opposition will be minimal if any.
EDIT: if other cities closed their city airports, then I guess it needs to be looked at on case by case basis. Maybe there was no economic case, and the airport was struggling financially. Maybe the nearby residents complained about the noise. Maybe the flight path interfered with a large highrise cluster that could otherwise be build inland. But we don't need to automatically replicate what some other cities chose to do (and some chose not to do).
