afransen said:
lol @$33k fine. That is far cheaper than doing it through proper channels. Asking forgiveness rather than permission, etc.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the size of that fine is laughable on the city scale. Still, highlights that their mayor was wrong and was found guilty.

And they increased the fine afterwards. Not retroactively, of course, but enough to discourage any followers.
 
Rainforest said:
Yeah, the size of that fine is laughable on the city scale. Still, highlights that their mayor was wrong and was found guilty.

And they increased the fine afterwards. Not retroactively, of course, but enough to discourage any followers.
Click to expand...
Is it in the tens of millions? If not, I doubt it would dissuade anyone otherwise inclined to do such a stunt.
 
afransen said:
lol @$33k fine. That is far cheaper than doing it through proper channels. Asking forgiveness rather than permission, etc.
Click to expand...

Mayor Daley of the famous ruling family of Chicago, that more or less had a lock on that City for 2 generations or more...........was known for this type of move; though this might have been his most grandiose effort.

He wasn't inclined to let much get in the way of his objectives.

His process is hard to defend, but I rather like the outcome just the same.
 
Last edited:
Chicago also still has Midway Airport with orange(?) line access. Toronto wouldn’t have that if we got rid of Billy Bishop. (And Hamilton doesn’t count.). I live downtown and don’t have.a car and use the airport a lot to fly to Montreal, Chicago, DC, NYC and Boston for weekend trips.
 
Northern Light said:
Chicago notably closed its City Centre airport (on an island) in 2003:

en.wikipedia.org

Meigs Field - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

This was done by the Mayor ordering City crews to gouge the runway and make it unusable in the middle of the night, without even notifying the FAA. It caused one flight diversion and stranded several aircraft.

Today, the site is a park:

View attachment 309735

From: https://www.architecture.org/learn/resources/buildings-of-chicago/building/northerly-island/
Click to expand...
Everyone I know that lives in Chicago hates that this airport was closed and wishes it was still around.

Toronto shouldn't make the same mistake
 
robmausser said:
Everyone I know that lives in Chicago hates that this airport was closed and wishes it was still around.

Toronto shouldn't make the same mistake
Click to expand...
To be fair the drive from O'Hare to downtown Chicago is seemingly more congested. I remember a recent work trip taking a really beaten up taxi into the city took over about hour.
 
Speaking of the airport, I've flied out of YTZ a few times on trips to I think St. John's, London, and even a flight to China, as a connecting leg to a flight out of YUL. I do suppose its not that much better in terms of time from Union with the UPX, but I the portrayal of the island airport as a plaything of the upper class is entirely a mischaracterization.
 
picard102 said:
It is.
Housing isn't going to happen without a big fight,
Click to expand...

Probably true.

picard102 said:
and there is ample parkland in the city.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion.

One with which I disagree.

Its also inconsistent with the parkland hectares per person standard set out in Toronto's Parkland Strategy.

This image show's Toronto's downtown care as an area of parkland need. (orange).

The Islands themselves are not; but they are the easiest source to fulfill the downtown need.

1617448037084.png


This image below ranks relative need by colour, red being the areas most short of parkland, orange being somewhat less bad:

1617448268164.png


Source: https://www.toronto.ca/city-governm...ision-plans-and-strategies/parkland-strategy/
 

Attachments

  • 1617448150776.png
    1617448150776.png
    157.5 KB · Views: 103
Last edited:
Curious to see what their definition of "need" is.
A park at everyone's door is unrealistic, and anywhere with density is going to have a problem finding parkland at their door unless we revert back to lower density.
 
picard102 said:
Curious to see what their definition of "need" is.
A park at everyone's door (500m) is unrealistic, and anywhere with density is going to have a problem finding parkland at their door unless we revert back to lower density.
Click to expand...

The definition in the strategy of low parks provision is less than 12m2 per person.

From the strategy phase 1 report:

There are pockets of very low parkland supply (under 4.0 m2 per person) throughout the city, including Downtown, the Danforth, Yonge and Lawrence, North York Centre and St. Clair West.

Large parts of the city have a low supply of District and City parks, especially the corridor between Downtown and North York, and parts of Northwest Scarborough and Etobicoke

***

Phase 1 report is here: https://www.toronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/95a5-pfr-parkland-strategy-phase-1-report.pdf

The goals around parkland provision include a mandate for certain types and sizes of parks within 'x' distance of a front door.

That graphic is below:

1617459617336.png
 
Last edited:
picard102 said:
Curious to see what their definition of "need" is.
A park at everyone's door is unrealistic, and anywhere with density is going to have a problem finding parkland at their door unless we revert back to lower density.
Click to expand...

Yep. And it's also a terrible excuse to tear down economic infrastructure. One that most of the city will not buy. Hence why the arguments only revolve around what downtowners want. Suddenly, it's irrelevant that YTZ is more transit accessible for most of the city. Or that it ensures our financial and tourism sectors have economically competitive air fares.

I'm curious if the same folks arguing for the closure of this airport will label the inevitable opposition to Pearson's 6th runway as NIMBYs in a few years when that happens.
 
kEiThZ said:
Yep. And it's also a terrible excuse to tear down economic infrastructure. One that most of the city will not buy. Hence why the arguments only revolve around what downtowners want. Suddenly, it's irrelevant that YTZ is more transit accessible for most of the city. Or that it ensures our financial and tourism sectors have economically competitive air fares.

I'm curious if the same folks arguing for the closure of this airport will label the inevitable opposition to Pearson's 6th runway as NIMBYs in a few years when that happens.
Click to expand...

23L is entirely within Pearson's existing land and flight corridors isn't it? Do they even need to do an EA for that?
 
kEiThZ said:
Yep. And it's also a terrible excuse to tear down economic infrastructure. One that most of the city will not buy. Hence why the arguments only revolve around what downtowners want. Suddenly, it's irrelevant that YTZ is more transit accessible for most of the city. Or that it ensures our financial and tourism sectors have economically competitive air fares.

I'm curious if the same folks arguing for the closure of this airport will label the inevitable opposition to Pearson's 6th runway as NIMBYs in a few years when that happens.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but there is ample parkland on the island.

That map is indicating that parkland is needed IN those orange zones. Putting more parkland on the island isn't going to solve the problem like putting a subway station on the island won't solve the problem of more transit being needed downtown.

The rail deck park, if it ever happens, will do a lot to alleviate that issue.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top