[adma]

I'm saying the pods and cinesphere are old. I'm not saying "don't preserve it" I'm saying "wait and see, because something better could be designed".

And what I'm saying is that given the circumstance, it'd be more prudent to think in terms of "wait and see, because the existing pods and sphere could be better and more successfully purposed". Especially since we're dealing with significant architecture here.

You might as well be excusing the sacrifice of anything, even Toronto City Hall, on grounds of "something better could be designed". I mean, sure. Maybe. But I sure wouldn't trust the "something better" optics of someone who'd propose demolishing Toronto City Hall on behalf of said "something better".

I also think that this needs to be our huge tourist attraction. Yes, there are many kinds of tourists. But we have the AGO and the ROM. I, personally, do not wan't to see a quiet museum here, or something as such. We already have fantastic museums in Toronto. I'm not saying never build more, but not at OP.

I, personally, think OP should be our "WOW factor" tourist attraction. And I don't care if your next posts criticizes me because i said "WOW factor".

Properly repurposed, the existing Ontario Place pods + sphere can make up for whatever "WOW-factor" huge-tourist-attraction deficit you imagine. And given all that Toronto already has, if you feel we're still lacking, maybe the deficit is your own.

This place can be something great. It can be a shining star. It can attract millions to Toronto. I think it needs a unique design that people will appreciate, along side attractions that are fun and entertaining.

The pods + sphere are already great. They are already a shining star and a design that people can appreciate. The "attract millions" and "side attractions" can be worked on, within reason.

Toronto has many places that can be used for the "AGO/OCAD" types of tourists" and I think we need something for the than "Canada's Wonderland" types of tourists" as you put it.

No, I'm not suggesting we build an amusement park here. We already have one. We can have some rides here though. We can have a Cirque show. We can make this an amazing entertainment destination.

Maybe there will even be some sort of museum aspect here.

It can appeal to a range of visitors.

Well, the museum aspect is definitely a possibility re the pods + sphere (or maybe even the primary excuse for their retention?).
However, given your previously-cited personal Lego/video games/water park Ontario Place framework, methinks your touristic conditioning is excessively juvenile--though that may also say something about the fix Ontario Place got itself into...

The truth is, Wonderland makes much more money than ROM. A world class place will make more than a museum.

If I'm reading that correctly, you're saying that Wonderland is more of a "world class place" than the ROM?!?

If it were all about "making money", Thomas Kinkade

is a greater, more "world class" artist than General Idea

You bring up billion like it means nothing. The billion dollar idea does make me excited, because it means this will be a huge, amazing project. Yes, I just used the word amazing.

Huh?!? A billion dollars automatically buys "huge, amazing"?!? I've seen plenty of millionbillionzillion-dollar things that are the apotheosis of bad taste, or have a way of turning so-called "good taste" into bad-taste-by-proxy--humongous casino/entertainment complexes (or Dubai) not excepted. Including those that you have illustrated.

So, dude, the fact is, the old OP is gone and not enough people are interested in it.

But the facilities are still there; and in principle, there are enough people who are interested in having a stake in its survival.

And under such circumstances...touristically speaking, Toronto has so much to go for it already, it doesn't need to bend over backwards on behalf of zillion-dollar casino/entertainment complexes that "make you excited". Because if you reeeeeallly need to be "excited" like that, maybe you suffer from some kind of deficiency. Sorta like, if you really need to tear down an Eden Smith house in Forest Hill for some gaudy McMansion because the Eden Smith doesn't "make you excited", then maybe Forest Hill (and Toronto) doesn't need your type. Go to Markham.

And re Ontario Place and casinos: well, especially given the "world's fair" metaphor, why not do the Montreal thing and straightforwardly repurpose what exists? It's discreet enough; and it's "good enough" without having to resort to this make-me-excited world-class-ism...

 

[coolcanadian]

It is very different comparing OP pods to Old City Hall. I never once said we should get rid of them. We could add more. We could repurpose them. If an amazing plan includes the demolition of them, then I am ok with that. As long as the plan is great.

I know there are billion dollar things that are bad. But 6 billion dollars give the possibility, and likeliness, of something great.

I'm not saying that Wonderland is more world class than the ROM. They are completely different. But yes, Wonderland is world class. It has a variety of coasters, rides, etc. I don't think I need to explain why Wonderland is a world class venue. Obviously, the ROM is world class too. One is an amusement park and one is a museum. They cannot be compared. Certainly Wonderland is more fun, and profitable, than ROM.

Don't get me wrong, I love ROM. Maybe one aspect of the new OP will include a museum-type thing.

I'm not just talking about making money. I love Wonderland. I am 15, but many adults love Wonderland. We need variety. A day at Wonderland is not at all the same as a day at the ROM.

They are both world class facilities however.

Please stop saying I would prefer a McMansion to a Forest Hill house. I love Forest Hill. The new mansions popping up everywhere are nice, but they don't compare.

The point of OP, when it was made, was to be futuristic. It made people say "wow". They would spend the whole day there. Now, its a boring, outdated complex. When I was much younger, like 6 or 7, it was fun. But even at age 10 it got boring.

We want the new OP to attract people from all over. A huge facility with rides, shows, shops, resorts, and a casino would be amazing. What is wrong with that?

I know that you wan't to see Op the way it was, but what you do not seem to understand is the fact that it was closed for a reason. The majority of people do not find it entertaining and therefore, it is not profitable.

If a huge company, ie. MGM, wants to help redevelop OP into something great, that includes a casino, then I do not see the problem.

You may see OP as a cool place with pods and spheres, but most people do not. If they did it would not be closing. It simply would not.

We need to think big here. Something world-renowned. If that includes a casino, if that includes rides, if that includes shows, if that includes hotels, and if that doesn't include pods, but is an amazing place with great architecture and design, then that is ok.

We should not just let the pods and sphere say because some people like the way it looks. It's not like they're a beautiful art-deco building.

Maybe they can be included in the new design. I'm saying this place needs to be completely rethought out, and turned into a world class, facility.

6 billion means something huge. I'm not saying 6 billion means its good, however you can't have a closed mind. In fact, it probably will be amazing.

The pods and spheres are cool, and very possibly could be worked into whatever new thing OP becomes.

However, if something even better is built, then do not fight it.

It seems as if you just do not want this place to succeed. You just compares a casino here to Montreal. That was less than a 500 million dollar development. Stop comparing. Let this be something great. There are countless examples of great casinos.

 

[jaycola]

I think there is a lot worth preserving of Ontario place. The public should demand the best parts be saved. Make them heritage buildings. The pods and the Cinesphere are part of our history, as short a time ago as it was.

For those of us who grew up in the 70's Ontario place was the premier summer destination until the Ex was on. There was a kids pavilion with my favourite all time park feature. They had these huge punching bags hung from the ceiling. They would never allow them in this time. Kids would run crashing blindly through the bags, smaller kids tossed aside without out ever seeing them. Some bigger kids would just hang out in the middle plowing over others with a bag when they came too close. I'm confident I left that amusement bleeding at some point.

I think most of what you can see in this picture should be saved and, where necessary re purposed. I think there is opportunity to consolidate the structures from the east side to the west. The concession pods have a certain appeal. I'd place those over on the shore at the entrance on the south side of Lakeshore. Create a craft fair/farmer's market there. Let them run 7 days a week if you want.

The water slides could easily be placed on the west side as well. Just to the south west of Cinesphere. Take most of the grassy area.
Just have to make it a little more dense. A quick turn around of the facilities could be done to open for spring next year.

The talk of "walkable" in reference to what ever is built makes no sense to me. Right now you have to enter over a bridge. Once you have crossed that bridge on to the islands how do you make the site walkable? The city planners will have a hand in whatever is built there whether it's public or private and will demand certain design elements be included.

I like a lot of what we have at Ontario place and by selling off a portion of it, we can maybe save the best parts.

Source http://teachingkidsnews.com

 

[coolcanadian]

I think there is a lot worth preserving of Ontario place. The public should demand the best parts be saved. Make them heritage buildings. The pods and the Cinesphere are part of our history, as short a time ago as it was.

For those of us who grew up in the 70's Ontario place was the premier summer destination until the Ex was on. There was a kids pavilion with my favourite all time park feature. They had these huge punching bags hung from the ceiling. They would never allow them in this time. Kids would run crashing blindly through the bags, smaller kids tossed aside without out ever seeing them. Some bigger kids would just hang out in the middle plowing over others with a bag when they came too close. I'm confident I left that amusement bleeding at some point.

I think most of what you can see in this picture should be saved and, where necessary re purposed. I think there is opportunity to consolidate the structures from the east side to the west. The concession pods have a certain appeal. I'd place those over on the shore at the entrance on the south side of Lakeshore. Create a craft fair/farmer's market there. Let them run 7 days a week if you want.

The water slides could easily be placed on the west side as well. Just to the south west of Cinesphere. Take most of the grassy area.
Just have to make it a little more dense. A quick turn around of the facilities could be done to open for spring next year.

The talk of "walkable" in reference to what ever is built makes no sense to me. Right now you have to enter over a bridge. Once you have crossed that bridge on to the islands how do you make the site walkable? The city planners will have a hand in whatever is built there whether it's public or private and will demand certain design elements be included.

I like a lot of what we have at Ontario place and by selling off a portion of it, we can maybe save the best parts.

Source http://teachingkidsnews.com

The money they get from selling it will last it a few years. The point is, what they have there now is not attracting nearly enough people. Moving it all to one side of the park and selling the rest won't attract more people. Its time for the whole place to be turned it something great again. Something that will get attention world wide. An icon for Toronto.

We can save the pods and sphere and make them into something else.

 

[coolcanadian]

Look at this. This is the kind of thing I am suggesting!

This was designed by students at Ryerson. I am not saying do what they suggest, I'm rather using this as an example to show how things can be done at OP while saving the pods and sphere.

Make it an amazing complex. Repurpose the pods and sphere.

This is what I want to see:

Eco-Leisure: urban park provides pedestrian link to Exhibition Place and waterfront boulevard with interactive and passive educational experiences where visitors engage in leisure activities amidst learning centres, discovery trails and water activities.

Arts + Culture: live-work studios mixed with independent retailers, galleries, street markets, and buskers also dedicating space to the development of start-up companies focusing on research and innovation in green industry/construction/design.

Economic Generator: most easterly urban bridge for city views with luxury hotel, waterfront mid-rise housing, boutique retail, live theatre, rides, fine dining, clubs above and casino within the underbelly of the urban bridge. This zone provides financial stability for Eco-Leisure and Arts + Culture zones to develop without the constraints of bottom-line decisions.

These are not my ideas, just what I would like to see! Its a win-win-win. You get your nature/learning, arts and culture, and major attraction!

In the economic generator, they should design and create the glitziest, iconic and most luxurious casino/hotel north of Las Vegas. It would be so impressive and visceral that once completed, it would become a ‘must see’ destination for any traveller visiting the province.

Create an architectural icon and make it an international landmark for the province and city.

When I post this picture...

... I am not saying "BUILD THIS!!!"

I am using it as an example, and let me explain my reasoning.

This is a billion dollar project, as we will hopefully be getting.
It is architecturally magnificent, and makes people (even those do not normally pay attention to architecture) stop and stare. I am not suggesting we design that, or anything like that. I am merely saying that the design should be eye turning and get international recognition.
The facility contains a casino, like ours would.
The complex has many cool amenities:

It is a major tourist attraction that has millions of guests.
It is on the waterfront.

In conclusion, I am not saying "completely demolish Ontario Place and build a mega casino"

I am saying "build something architecturally stunning that fits in with existing parts of OP"

Repurpose the pods and sphere. Merge OP with The Ex. Make one part educational and full of exploring. Make another part artsy and unique. Make the third part glitzy and fun, with rides, shows, hotels, a casino, and more.

Do you get my point? I think it is possible. With a partner like MGM, we could have a great complex on our hands.

 

[adma]

"Glitzy" isn't necessarily a positive label, you know.

And by and large, you seem to be 15 years old to a fault--and with an outlook that, in a way, reflects more of the "family-friendly" car-culture hockey-dad remoteness of 905burbia, something (and take this more as a critique of milieu than a personal critique) whose notions of tourism/travel/going-to-and-experiencing-places has been overly conditioned/skewed by the SUV-scaled overkill of Great Wolf Lodges and their like. From such a realm, it's all too easily to be totally flabby and out of one's element when it comes to a deeper, more intimate and disarming engagement to urbanity or anything which surrounds us. (Obvious case in point: the Fords' infantile brand of "urban visioning".)

 

[coolcanadian]

"Glitzy" isn't necessarily a positive label, you know.

And by and large, you seem to be 15 years old to a fault--and with an outlook that, in a way, reflects more of the "family-friendly" car-culture hockey-dad remoteness of 905burbia, something (and take this more as a critique of milieu than a personal critique) whose notions of tourism/travel/going-to-and-experiencing-places has been overly conditioned/skewed by the SUV-scaled overkill of Great Wolf Lodges and their like. From such a realm, it's all too easily to be totally flabby and out of one's element when it comes to a deeper, more intimate and disarming engagement to urbanity or anything which surrounds us. (Obvious case in point: the Fords' infantile brand of "urban visioning".)

By "glitzy" I mean snazzy, showy, swank, trendy, flashy, and sharp. In a positive way. Not tacky and tasteless.

I have said that OP should have three main parts:

One for learning, with exploring, museums-type interactive attractions, nature trails and water activities, to really take advantage of the waterfront aspect.

One for arts and culture, with unique shops, art galleries, street performers, cafes, etc.

And one that will generate the money to keep the other two alive, with luxury hotels, rides, upscale shops, restaurants, shows (Cirque?), nightclubs, casino, light show, fountains, etc.

That way, everyone wins. People get their learning experience. People get their urban shops and such, and people get their rides and casinos. It fits almost every type of tourist.

It seems like your travels are more off the beaten path. Thats fine, but OP is meant to be a huge attraction. That's what its there for. Its not off the beaten path. Toronto has a lot of "untouched" attractions.

I don't understand what you would like to see at OP. Please tell me. This is meant to be something big, and we should make it that.

It should be a place that takes more than one day to explore. People would be able to spend a few more days in the city, maybe two at OP (3 if the Ex is open?), for example, and 5 exploring the rest of the city.

 

[adma]

That way, everyone wins. People get their learning experience. People get their urban shops and such, and people get their rides and casinos. It fits almost every type of tourist.

Or maybe the whole problem here is the word "tourist".

I mean, let's take a hypothetical family road trip to Niagara. One way to approach it would be to point out, notice, actively engage to things on the way; and the other way is to treat it as a simple banal point-A-to-point-B journey to "designated attractions" while the backseat kiddies preoccupy themselves with video games, or something.

Sounds to me like you've experienced way too much of the latter and very little of the former.

 

[coolcanadian]

Or maybe the whole problem here is the word "tourist".

I mean, let's take a hypothetical family road trip to Niagara. One way to approach it would be to point out, notice, actively engage to things on the way; and the other way is to treat it as a simple banal point-A-to-point-B journey to "designated attractions" while the backseat kiddies preoccupy themselves with video games, or something.

Sounds to me like you've experienced way too much of the latter and very little of the former.

I really do not see how that is relevant to Ontario Place. OP is supposed to be an attraction. People should want to go there. They can do whatever they want on the way there. It's in the middle of an amazing city! However, it should be something so great that you can spend a lot of time there. Anyone who comes to Toronto to see a new, spectacular Ontario Place is obviously going to explore other parts of the city.

 

[AKS]

I want to see a serious study done by trained professionals (Not politicians like John Tory) on how to save OP. I want to hear solutions and not throw in the towel so easily. The park should still be open to the public, while the experts debate future plans.

I understand your frustration about spending so much money to fix the OP and then close it down. I blame it on their lack of foresight. If the OP was doing so badly that it is losing money year after year, they shouldn't have spent so much to fix the OP but rather just close it down. But you say since it's fixed, they should open the park to the public until there's future plans. That's dumping more tax dollars down the drain. If you open the park, you have to pay people to maintain it. You know how slow government works when it comes to planning. It could be 5-10 years or more before anything gets done. Meanwhile you want to keep the park open so it will keep bleeding red year after year? Money talks. There's no money even to do anything. They need a private investment to spruce things up. Public money is sorely lacking, hence the OP has fallen into such a dire situation.

 

[coolcanadian]

I understand your frustration about spending so much money to fix the OP and then close it down. I blame it on their lack of foresight. If the OP was doing so badly that it is losing money year after year, they shouldn't have spent so much to fix the OP but rather just close it down. But you say since it's fixed, they should open the park to the public until there's future plans. That's dumping more tax dollars down the drain. If you open the park, you have to pay people to maintain it. You know how slow government works when it comes to planning. It could be 5-10 years or more before anything gets done. Meanwhile you want to keep the park open so it will keep bleeding red year after year? Money talks. There's no money even to do anything. They need a private investment to spruce things up. Public money is sorely lacking, hence the OP has fallen into such a dire situation.

That is why I think having a casino on site is so plausible! A company like MGM could do so much, and with only 5% casino OP could be so much more.

The fact that they spent money to repair things has been done, so talking about it on here won't help. In fact, we should be happy they plan to keep it as an attraction rather than selling it to condo developers. It is frustrating that they spent money on something only to close it down, but keeping that part open will only drain more money.

As i said before, I think this would be great:

An eco area, an artsy/cultural area, and a flashy (in a good way) area.

 

[AKS]

That is why I think having a casino on site is so plausible! A company like MGM could do so much, and with only 5% casino OP could be so much more.

The fact that they spent money to repair things has been done, so talking about it on here won't help. In fact, we should be happy they plan to keep it as an attraction rather than selling it to condo developers. It is frustrating that they spent money on something only to close it down, but keeping that part open will only drain more money.

As i said before, I think this would be great:

An eco area, an artsy/cultural area, and a flashy (in a good way) area.

Posting images of examples is great and all. But you know, they're just images. What you want and what you get in the end can be totally different things. You might imagine it with whatever great vision you want it to be. But in the end, it's the private investors who will bring up their plans which could be good, or completely suck. Call me a pessimist. I won't believe it until I at least see their real plans. And even with plans, the government would have to enforce that they follow through with it. I've seen too many "cheapening" out on final projects that I reserve judgement.

I'm open to ideas, but when MGM gives such a big number such as 2-6 billion, it could be the short end of the stick at 2 billion. How much can be built with that? How great or crappy will it turn out? Who knows. I say, let the private companies present ideas and budget and have them compete.

 

[coolcanadian]

Posting images of examples is great and all. But you know, they're just images. What you want and what you get in the end can be totally different things. You might imagine it with whatever great vision you want it to be. But in the end, it's the private investors who will bring up their plans which could be good, or completely suck. Call me a pessimist. I won't believe it until I at least see their real plans. And even with plans, the government would have to enforce that they follow through with it. I've seen too many "cheapening" out on final projects that I reserve judgement.

I'm open to ideas, but when MGM gives such a big number such as 2-6 billion, it could be the short end of the stick at 2 billion. How much can be built with that? How great or crappy will it turn out? Who knows. I say, let the private companies present ideas and budget and have them compete.

If MGM was the only one interested, I would understand why you feel that way. However, other companies, such as Caesar's, are interested. Maybe they will all present an idea, and the government will choose the best one. Maybe the government will supply some funds while a private company supply the rest.

Anyway, my point is, with various companies interested, we should not have the attitude that "it will not happen because this is Toronto and companies have cheaper out before".

If anything, we should wait and see what the design is. If its bad, then ok I'm wrong. But at this point, we should't say it will be bad so therefore we should just build something less amazing, or go back to what we have already with a little improvement.

We had the tallest building for over 30 years.

We have one of the best amusement parks in the world.

We had the first retractable roof stadium.

we have the largest underground mall, PATH, that countless cities look up too.

We have skyscrapers cooled by the lake.

There are countless examples of amazing in Toronto. We should't say this will not be one just because its easy to say that.

 

[adma]

Anyone who comes to Toronto to see a new, spectacular Ontario Place is obviously going to explore other parts of the city.

Well, I know what you mean; it's a little like the effect Gehry's Guggenheim had on Bilbao. But the trouble there is twofold: (a) Toronto is hardly in a pre-Gehry Bilbao rust-belt-backwaterish state of being, and (b) the Guggenheim wasn't created by zillion-dollar casino operators.

And as proof of how zillion-dollar casino-based attractions won't necessarily generate the climate or demographic for "exploring other parts of the city", the way a Guggenheim might: Bilbao vs Atlantic City. In the latter case, you'd be taking your life in your own hands...

 

[coolcanadian]

Well, I know what you mean; it's a little like the effect Gehry's Guggenheim had on Bilbao. But the trouble there is twofold: (a) Toronto is hardly in a pre-Gehry Bilbao rust-belt-backwaterish state of being, and (b) the Guggenheim wasn't created by zillion-dollar casino operators.

And as proof of how zillion-dollar casino-based attractions won't necessarily generate the climate or demographic for "exploring other parts of the city", the way a Guggenheim might: Bilbao vs Atlantic City. In the latter case, you'd be taking your life in your own hands...

As it has been said before, there are different types of tourists. If Ontario Place becomes an amazing destination in itself, a Disney World if you will (in the sense that people travel just to see it), then it will still be a positive addition to our city.

Yes, some visitors may come and only spend time there. However, I think the majority of visitors would spend time there, maybe goto the CN Tower, Hockey Hall of Fame, ROM, etc.

Some visitors will not even goto OP, just explore some of our diverse neighbourhoods and shopping streets.

This would be different that Disney World because it's being built in a city that already has so much to offer.

If people come, they will likely do both OP and explore Toronto.

Some people may just do OP, but that still brings money into our economy.

Some people will not do OP.

Do you see my point? I'm saying that even if this becomes a major thing in Toronto, and some families only come to see it, it will still bring tourism dollars. However, I highly doubt someone visiting Toronto would only see OP and nothing else.