|
|
|
- Thread starter interchange42
- Start date
DSC
Superstar
See Post 394 above, from last November. They are, slowly, putting them up everywhere.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
The PATH really is a significant strategic asset, and I would like to see the city get a bit more aggressive about making sure that new development in the shoulder areas of downtown is properly integrated. Without putting too fine a point on it: now that tech seems to be the main driver of office development, it will be important to convince largely California-based folks that Toronto winters are survivable. PATH can help, but not if it remains basically a Financial District thing.
MetroMan
Senior Member
That's a good point. The city should mandate that all new buildings downtown connect to one another or at least accommodate future PATH connections.
Skeezix
Senior Member
If you mean downtown in the sense of how the City defines it from a planning perspective (everything between Bathurst and the Don, up to Bloor or Dupont depending on the circumstances), then no. If you mean the Financial District, as proposed to be expanded by TOcore (to include Southcore, and certain lands east of Yonge and west of University), then yes for office buildings. I don't feel strongly than purely residential buildings be connected to the PATH, although TOcore purports to restrict those in the Financial District so that could be a moot point.
ETA: I guess I would qualify what I said to also include requiring PATH connections on any buildings, whatever the use, that would facilitate connections between the PATH and Ryerson and the node around College/Yonge.
Last edited:
innsertnamehere
Superstar
I'm interested to see if the residential use ban in the financial district survives into the final report - it's probably my least favourite policy in the document. With the OMB a part of history now it cannot be appealed - which means new residential in the financial core is officially dead if it makes it into the final plan.
Thernan
Active Member
Why is Toronto General not indicated on the map? It is clearly connected underground to the MARS building's part of the PATH directly to its north.
Skeezix
Senior Member
The new map appears to, thankfully, ignore those isolated, random islands of subway connections which aren't connected to the main PATH system.
I also note, mind you, that the new map appears to be stuck in the 1990s in one respect: 250 Yonge is still referred to as "Eaton Tower".
And, unhelpfully, the map lists the "CF Toronto Eaton Centre" in the alphabetical listing because, yeah, that's how tourists and visitors are going to look for it. FFS.
Would they list the Sony Centre as the O'Keefe Centre because that's what it originally was called? They've renamed it. Live with it.
Skeezix
Senior Member
Um, you seem to have missed the point completely. Your analogy would make sense only if they called it the CF Sony Centre. I didn't suggest that the PATH map refer to the Eaton's Main Store. Did I suggest that Simpson's was missing from the map, or something?
As for the renaming, I think people are pretty aware that Cadillac added the CF prefix, as I am. Are you concerned about whether I know what Cadillac has done? I think mocking it is still okay. It's quite mockable. And I would have thought questioning how helpful it is to tourists and visitors would be okay too, given they are unlikely to look under "C". Honestly, I'm not even sure what you mean with "live with it". I don't have anxiety over it, if that was your concern. But thanks for worrying about my mental health.
Last edited:
Mental health? I don't understand that comment.
Why wouldn't they list it as CF Toronto Eaton Centre? That's the name. That the new name is kind of nuts is quite irrelevant.
I still call it the Skydome but that doesn't mean that name should show up on maps today.
Why wouldn't they list it as CF Toronto Eaton Centre? That's the name. That the new name is kind of nuts is quite irrelevant.
I still call it the Skydome but that doesn't mean that name should show up on maps today.
Skeezix
Senior Member
Again, with SkyDome, you seem to have missed the point.
The reference to mental health was to your bizarre "live with it" comment. I wasn't aware that I was somehow not accepting something. You might want to explain that one.
Just saying that corporate branding and being most helpful to tourists and visitors are not necessarily compatible. And given the whole point of what we are talking about (a map), corporate branding might take a back seat. We're not talking a completely different name here, just an ego-driven prefix. Just an opinion. Not so sure what's so confusing about that. If you think tourists and visitors will look it up under "CF", then by all means say that.
Michael1985
New Member
The map has a lot of work to do but I agree that PATH should, ultimately in the future, connect to more facilities outside of the Financial District. It would help with decreasing mass pedestrians on the road which always causes on uproar from drivers.
grey
Senior Member
Yeah, all those pedestrians should know better than to wander around on the busy roads among the helpless vehicle traffic (???)
Skeezix
Senior Member
If only we could eliminate pedestrians stopping drivers from mounting sidewalks, and ploughing through crosswalks on red.