[turbanplanner]

I would totally do that if I were mayor to kill this thing for good, but I doubt Olivia has the will.

I don't understand the hate? Everyone who uses it loves it, and it's one of the busiest airports in the country despite the size.

You could start at hotel at YYZ and it would still take longer to get to your seat in the plane than someone leaving from the burbs and taking the GO to YTZ.

 

[cplchanb]

I don't understand the hate? Everyone who uses it loves it, and it's one of the busiest airports in the country despite the size.

You could start at hotel at YYZ and it would still take longer to get to your seat in the plane than someone leaving from the burbs and taking the GO to YTZ.

just fundamentalists who are resistant to change and progress. they would rather keep the good ol days when it was just nature and water.

 

[Northern Light]

just fundamentalists who are resistant to change and progress. they would rather keep the good ol days when it was just nature and water.

This is entirely inaccurate.

Its unhelpful and is broad-brushed name-calling.

 

[cplchanb]

This is entirely inaccurate.

Its unhelpful and is broad-brushed name-calling.

so what are the reasons then... the airport isnt losing money... its set in an advantageous geographical location... its helps take volume off of yyz and for small aircraft to land.... it helps considerably with revenue for toronto... not to mention they just completed a multi million dollar tunnel project.
what sound logical reasons are there to take away from the toronto other than ideological ones?

 

[generalcanada]

so what are the reasons then... the airport isnt losing money... its set in an advantageous geographical location... its helps take volume off of yyz and for small aircraft to land.... it helps considerably with revenue for toronto... not to mention they just completed a multi million dollar tunnel project.
what sound logical reasons are there to take away from the toronto other than ideological ones?

Ill take a stab at this. Toronto has grown so much since the 80s.
Just look at photos from then and now and say the city is the same. All those condos and people living here only started since in the early 2000's.
Instead of an industrial area it was in the 80s there is tens of thousands of people there, all of which whose lives would be massively improved by having a place to visit on the island, some would prefer a park, or at the very least a connection to the rest of the islands. I would be in favour of some kind of attraction ALA Ontario Place.

Having a park would ensure we continue to develop a livable city, one that actually works for those living there not just commuters or tourists.

Yes, it contributes to the economy, but so do cigarettes and it's a scourge on society. Just because it makes money doesn't mean its inherently good.
Yea it helps with capacity at yyz, but thats more of a problem of not having more than 1 true international airport. Pickering airport anyone? And they have their own concerns.
Remember ytz only goes to east coast and as far west as Winnepeg. Its not like it has destinations that you cant get to from yyz.

 

[picard102]

All those condos and people living here only started since in the early 2000's.

The ones that moved in next to an active airport?

 

[turbanplanner]

The ones that moved in next to an active airport?

It's only been there since the 40's!

Also, if we want a park wouldn't the portlands be a better "fight"?

 

[generalcanada]

The ones that moved in next to an active airport?

Life is good, but it can be better

An image tagged life is good but it can be better

imgflip.com

Yes, people moved in knowing the airport is there, but doesn't mean that we can't make the neighborhood better.
Another example is the Gardiner, it exists and its important, but that doesn't mean it should block local progress. Imagine the Bentway but all across the downtown core.

It's not about opposition to anything, it's about what could be better for the area. An airport for business travelers? Or a public space that contributes massively to the overall wellbeing of people?

 

[generalcanada]

It's only been there since the 40's!

Also, if we want a park wouldn't the portlands be a better "fight"?

On the off-chance you unblocked me....

"High Park is close and its great why do you need a new one"

Same thing...still just straight wrong.

Parks are great and they need to be spread out. You can't have enough public space.

Also there is no "fight" at the port lands, there's going to be parkland there eventually

 

[Dinamo5]

Why can't we just make more islands and make a connection to the islands that is more than just a tunnel to an airport or a ferry. Not everytime do I feel like waiting in line for hours for a ferry ride to the islands, or pay more for a water taxi. I think a bridge to the islands is the answer here.

 

[generalcanada]

Why can't we just make more islands and make a connection to the islands that is more than just a tunnel to an airport or a ferry. Not everytime do I feel like waiting in line for hours for a ferry ride to the islands, or pay more for a water taxi. I think a bridge to the islands is the answer here.

I mean sure we could fill more islands in, but it would be quite expensive. Like we could build a 50km tunnel, doesn't mean it's a good idea financially

Simply we need more access points to the islands, Again, I'd be fine with using the Billy Bishop tunnel connection to the islands, and it could stay open, but it would require the city taking back more land from the airport.

If the airport cant stay open and also serve the needs of the people, what good is it?

 

[just east of the creek]

I mean sure we could fill more islands in, but it would be quite expensive. Like we could build a 50km tunnel, doesn't mean it's a good idea financially

Simply we need more access points to the islands, Again, I'd be fine with using the Billy Bishop tunnel connection to the islands, and it could stay open, but it would require the city taking back more land from the airport.

If the airport cant stay open and also serve the needs of the people, what good is it?

Parkland with waterfront or river/stream access is a great attribute to any town or city.

In Toronto you could build more islands, but perhaps more peninsulas (in the style of Tommy Thompson Park) as we did with the Leslie Street Spit (which was dedicated Port Lands when first envisioned) is the better way. Now that Doug has given away Ontario Place, how about a curving parkland addition reaching from the base of the Humber River and bending to the in the general direction of Marie Curtis Park - parkland, multi trail use, yacht basin. Perhaps more in the style of the Islands as opposed to the 'wilder' nature of the spit. We generate enough fill from the steady output of construction and where does it all go? And you could widen the scope of collection with loading points in Oshawa and Hamilton for self unloading barges to transport fill, so you are not depending on reams of trucks making there way to the moth of the Humber.

As for the airport. This is an asset to the city and has been for many years, and should stay. We can discuss lengthening of runways, quiet jets and turbo props, but there is a market for these services, the business community (as well as may others) will continue to pay to use, and we happen to be part of the makeup of the city as well.

The city could, as other municipalities have done with similar waterfront situations, eliminate the island housing and open up those spaces as parkland. Lovely for a few, but are we catering to a few or to many? And if that is too painful a scenario, then how about a city wide lottery including all of these houses/cottages for a chance to win a years residence on the islands? Open this up to others who will never have a chance otherwise to enjoy such a bucolic existence. Every city taxpayer qualifies for the lottery, some sort of upkeep rent is charged and you get a house/cottage for a calendar year starting Jan 1.

 

[Northern Light]

so what are the reasons then... the airport isnt losing money

The financial welfare of the airport is unlikely a key concern of its detractors...........but....

Hypothetically........

What if the airport terminal's largest tenant is not making any money (profit) on flights it flies out of Billy Bishop?

What if that tenant is already shifting many of their flights to Pearson?

What if that tenant is unlikely to renew their lease being 2033?

What if Ports Toronto doesn't make the investment to comply with RESA by mid 2027, and the main tenant can no longer legally fly their current aircraft from there?

Maybe the airport isn't the gold mine you think?

That's just hypothetical..... mind you....

... its set in an advantageous geographical location... its helps take volume off of yyz and for small aircraft to land.

What if general aviation users of of the airport are under the impression that whether the airport remains or not, that their days there are numbered?

... it helps considerably with revenue for toronto

Do elaborate on that statement.

... not to mention they just completed a multi million dollar tunnel project.

A bit over 9 years ago, but sure.

what sound logical reasons are there to take away from the toronto other than ideological ones?

Go have a look at this post of mine and get back to me:

Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

I mean if that's the price for not having to deal with NIMBY's across the board, I think that's probably a good trade off. Far to much time is spent trying to appease the loudest voices. The issue is not one of actually accommodating every objector to every thing........... Nor is it even...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[just east of the creek]

The financial welfare of the airport is unlikely a key concern of its detractors...........but....

Hypothetically........

What if the airport terminal's largest tenant is not making any money (profit) on flights it flies out of Billy Bishop?

What if that tenant is already shifting many of their flights to Pearson?

What if that tenant is unlikely to renew their lease being 2033?

What if Ports Toronto doesn't make the investment to comply with RESA by mid 2027, and the main tenant can no longer legally fly their current aircraft from there?

Maybe the airport isn't the gold mine you think?

That's just hypothetical..... mind you....



What if general aviation users of of the airport are under the impression that whether the airport remains or not, that their days there are numbered?



Do elaborate on that statement.



A bit over 9 years ago, but sure.



Go have a look at this post of mine and get back to me:

Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

I mean if that's the price for not having to deal with NIMBY's across the board, I think that's probably a good trade off. Far to much time is spent trying to appease the loudest voices. The issue is not one of actually accommodating every objector to every thing........... Nor is it even...

urbantoronto.ca

And if this should prove to be the case, then business decisions have been taken. And at that point, then it is time to decommission the airport, and move the property on to other uses.

 

[Ward8]

just fundamentalists who are resistant to change and progress. they would rather keep the good ol days when it was just nature and water.

Thats not true, demolishing the airport would be considered change and progress by those people.

It comes down to opportunity cost. It's an extremely valuable piece of real estate, both economically and culturally. An airport capitalizes on a fraction of that potential.

Change and progress would probably look something like this.... This is a roughly to scale visualization of Venice and the museum in Bilbao. Not included would be a pedestrian bridge, transit connection and what the rest of the park would like like.

Our thinking is so small when it comes to the island. I personally liek the addition of housing and cultural spaces because it adds an element of safety and upkeep to what would otherwise be an isolated park.