I see that Porter planes are now shutting down one engine almost as soon as they land, and taxiing to the gate on one engine only. A cost-saving measure?
 
kEiThZ said:
Good luck with that. That won't have the universal tractions some thing it will either. Many of us lament the condofront too. And now those condofront residents want to destroy infrastructure that pre-dated them? To put up more condos?


I'd actually support a closure of YTZ, if they had a plan that created a proper public space on the entire Toronto Islands. I won't support one that results in simply more privatization of prime toronto real estate. We already have one set of entitled Islanders. I'd prefer not to add to that set. And I'm pretty sure, I'm not the only one with this opinion.

Just like today. For every resident who is vocal about living close to YTZ, you'll find many, many of us that don't care (I live at Bathurst/Fort York and don't even think about the airport) and quite a few that patronize the airport regularly. If you are going to take away the benefits the latter group is enjoying, you better off something in return beyond more condos.
Click to expand...

I would be okay with some "privatization" of the island airport lands if the plan was to build a new low/midrise St. Lawrence Neighbourhood-type development on the site, with generous parks (including expansion/improvement of the clothing-required section of Hanlan's Beach); with conditions it remain car free except for authorized deliveries such as moving companies and store deliveries (and emergency services, but that's a given), that half the units be co-ops or other affordable housing types (not necessarily TCHC), and there are public and commercial attractions such as those enhanced parks, a few restaurants, brewpub and the sort. Cap the total units at 6-8,000.

The Islands don't need more parkland, but there should be improvements to that parkland.

In the short term, I'm perfectly okay with Porter doing what it does with Q400s.
 
^is there really a market for 6-8,000 units (what's that 10 - 20k occupants) in an area you can't get to by car? I would have thought not.
 
ShonTron said:
I would be okay with some "privatization" of the island airport lands if the plan was to build a new low/midrise St. Lawrence Neighbourhood-type development on the site, with generous parks (including expansion/improvement of the clothing-required section of Hanlan's Beach); with conditions it remain car free except for authorized deliveries such as moving companies and store deliveries (and emergency services, but that's a given), that half the units be co-ops or other affordable housing types (not necessarily TCHC), and there are public and commercial attractions such as those enhanced parks, a few restaurants, brewpub and the sort. Cap the total units at 6-8,000.
Click to expand...

I think this would be a really great alternative to YTZ. Downtown could always use more living space, and presumably the area would be desirable due to its location.

More than the presence of cars, the tricky part of building a neighbourhood here would be how to serve it with transit. There could be a whole new circle route which would run along King/Queen downtown, intersecting with Yonge n University, then curving down Spadina or Bathurst (intersecting a RER/SBahn/REX station west of Union) before crossing over to the island, looping back around and crossing into the Portlands back past the Distiller District (again intersecting a GO/RER/SBahn station) or whatever happens to the Unilever site, and back into downtown.
 
innsertnamehere said:
the only development in Toronto with 0 parking spots is RCMI condos on University. Its a couple hundred units.
Click to expand...

and I think there is a huge difference between a couple of hundred units, on University Avenue (that cars and cabs can pull up to)...walking distance to two subway stations, two streetcar lines and the jobs that a lot of the residents would be working in....and 6k-8k units on an island that have more than no parking....they have no vehicle access.
 
Last edited:
picard102 said:
What? You see a lack of space to live in downtown Toronto?
Click to expand...

Sure... Why else would people be proposing 50-80 storey condos if there wasn't a lack of space?

By the time we'd consider anything like redeveloping something like YTZ, most of downtown's surface lots and old industrial sites will have been developed.
 
diminutive said:
Sure... Why else would people be proposing 50-80 storey condos if there wasn't a lack of space?

By the time we'd consider anything like redeveloping something like YTZ, most of downtown's surface lots and old industrial sites will have been developed.
Click to expand...

That will take a very long time. Take a walk from Eaton Centre to St Lawrence market and you will pass half a dozen surface lots with decent size.
And there are tons of nondescript two story or even one story shacks completely devoid of any preservation value. Downtown doesn't lack land at least for the next 30 years.
 
ksun said:
That will take a very long time. Take a walk from Eaton Centre to St Lawrence market and you will pass half a dozen surface lots with decent size.
And there are tons of nondescript two story or even one story shacks completely devoid of any preservation value. Downtown doesn't lack land at least for the next 30 years.
Click to expand...

Well, lot's of things are more likely than building a new community on the Islands in the first place. I can't think of anything anti-YTZ people would hate more than YTZ, except adding 10-20k condo residents who will spoil 'their' waterfront tranquility.

Nonetheless, personally, the thought of building a whole new community right near the city does really excite me. Obviously the most efficient way to add density would be, as you say, to continuously redevelop parking lots and undersized buildings.

I think I'm a bit nostalgic for something like Harbour City.
 
How WestJet’s Encore could hurt Air Canada, eliminate Porter

http://business.financialpost.com/2...ncore-could-hurt-air-canada-eliminate-porter/

The analyst estimates Air Canada could lose more than $150-million in revenues on seven new destinations that he believes Encore will eventually serve out of Toronto.

Mr. Cherniavsky also suggested Porter stands to lose about $65-million in annual revenue on those seven routes.

As a result, the analyst believes it will be far more challenging for Porter to withstand Encore’s impact on pricing in the east due to its smaller size.
Click to expand...
 
This is just a hunch. Porter is struggling and needed to implement the 1st bag charge of $25 to $30 even at the risk of loosing customers or at the least its outrage. Not many businesses have sales that are year round either. Whats important is a steady cash flow to meet the expenses. If this were a profitable business it would stay in private hands. My understanding is that they are still waiting for the best time to launch their IPO. As I said, just a hunch.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top