There were once log cabins and farm houses in what became Central Park, but like Toronto it was decided that permanent residents were not appropriate in a public park.
An airport, the sound of turboprops being run up for maintenance, and the smell of jet fuel is appropriate in a public park but a quiet cottage is not?
In the absense of the squatters - or more importantly the squatters disproportionate influence a wider range of uses would be on the table for the area.
More people use the island for recreation and relaxation than use the airport.
The silos haven't been taken down because they are seen as semi-historic landmarks that represent the ports industrial past and many would like to incorporate them into future developments.
At the airport the runways and all buildings except for the original terminal building would not be seen as historic and the airport lands would become park and not developed. Much easier to rip up and sod the same way it occurred in Chicago's Meigs Field.
Virtually all of the formal noise complaints come from a very small group of islanders.
Yes. Noise complaints related to the Docks and concerts do come from a very small group of islanders. You have labeled all of the islanders as "squatter scum" whose occupancy should be made as inhospitable as possible. If a large concert was held in Rosedale Park you would also get noise complaints and Rosedale Park and many other parks are also "in the middle of Canada's largest city".
I find this thinking astonishing, as though respecting the squatters bedtime is more important than activities that would contribute to the waterfront as a social\cultural destination and as a transportation\business centre. 700 privillaged squatters are dictating land use to 5.5 million people. Seriously?
Everybody lives somewhere and every neighbourhood deserves equal protection. The airport is as much a squatter sitting in the way of the city's plan for islands dedicated to recreation as the residents are. Fortunately for the airport there is a level of government and rules that prevent the city from closing it down. Fortunately for the island residents there is a lease agreement for them which allows them to be there as well.
The squatters and the island airport have nothing to do with any of that, nor are any of those alternatives mutually exclusive. You can have an active commuter/private airport, a giant park, a mixed-use destination waterfront and no squatters to object to any of the above.
Noise and nighttime in residential areas is mutually exclusive. Look at airports around the world and they are surrounded by light industrial properties and have restrictions on new residential developments. Look at open air concert venues around the world and they are not located next to residential areas.
The idea that these 700 squatters who are only there because of their strong ties to the NDP should have an all purpose veto over any activity in their earshot is insanity.
They don't have any veto activity. They have the right to lodge a noise complaint like every other person. The only reason the city can't close the airport is because of its close ties to business and the federal government.
Where else on earth would this sort of group have such clout?
Every neighbourhood. Community groups exist everywhere protecting their neighbourhoods over the interests of others. The same thing is happening in Weston as GO Transit / Blue 22 tries to expand the rail corridor. The same thing happens when condos are proposed near a residential area. If a huge party happens in the house next to yours that annoys you enough you will probably call someone to lodge a complaint and you will not hold back because the math is 3 or 4 occupants in your house trying to sleep versus 50 people trying to party next door.
Dichotomy said:
The waterfront is for everyone to use. This is a city, not Algonquin Park.
The goal of the city is to make the islands a park with trees, grass, picnics, and beaches. People cram onto island ferries all summer to go to a place which is not filled with cars, buildings, and other aspects of city hustle and bustle.
Transportation of all forms is vital to a city's economic health. There is enough Parkland in this city now that is underdeveloped and under used.
There are parks all over this city. This is the largest city in Canada. That does not make every park appropriate for concerts, aircraft, helicopters, freeways, and trains. One can argue that Algonquin Park is underdeveloped and under used, but most others would argue that that is the whole point of a park. To develop and over use a park would make it no longer a park.
I use Porter airlines. I feel they provide great service. I agree the airport has a right to be there. I look forward to the day high-speed rail connects downtown to the airport and Ottawa and Montreal rendering the downtown airport obsolete so it can become part of the Toronto Island park. I feel a flight path and airport is an industrial use not compatible with sailing, flying kites, and enjoying the escape the park would otherwise provide, and that the two lane Bathurst and Spadina intersection surrounded by residences which has a public school on the corner is not a good match for the traffic that will occur as Porter continues to expand.
I also look forward to the cottage leases expiring but they have a right to be there right now. They are human beings, not "squatter scum", and have a right to complain about things that affect the quality of life in their neighbourhood just as every resident in every other neighbourhood does.