[One Nut Kruk]

If Lakeshore was a beautiful avenue like University (I know Jane Jacobs hated it, but still), I wouldn't mind crossing it at all. It's the ugly concrete, the deafening sound, the feeling you're not welcome that the Gardiner creates that's a barrier. Even going under the railway tracks can be more pleasant if they add art and good lighting (as is the plan), because while you cross it you don't see kilometres of blight to each side. London is full of underpasses that don't disconnect the city at all, you get to it and in 20 seconds you're on the other side, and you might have seen a nice light installation on the way.

Who cares if Jane Jacobs hated University Avenue? That doesn't mean you can't like it.

 

[M II A II R II K]

If they choose to replace it with another elevated expressway they should at least ICTS or a Wuppertal or two along with it.

 

[FNTS]

Who cares if Jane Jacobs hated University Avenue? That doesn't mean you can't like it.

That was meant to be funny. Humour, you know?

 

[ksun]

Again, you don't improve the city by punishing drivers - you improve the city by building better alternatives.

It is not punishing drivers. Most of those drivers shouldn't be driving there and causing all the noise and congestion, not to say loss of land value in the first place. How many of those cars are just passing by, without even entering downtown Toronto? Isn't it a stupid idea to allow thousands of cars to just pass through the downtown of a major city from one suburb to another

Those who do end up downtown, well, there is the Go train specifically for that purpose if it is just for work, and other transit options as well. Yes, it takes longer, but that's the price you pay for living too far away from some where you need to go frequently.

 

[FNTS]

Presentation from Waterfront Toronto press conference is online:
http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/de...N02 - presentation - MEDIA - 2014 02 05_1.pdf

A few new artist's impressions for the "Remove" option:

At Sherbourne, day:

At Sherbourne, night:

At Parliament:

At the mouth of the Don:

 

[ksun]

[h=2]Long over due for taking it down and needs to west to York St.

Add this to this mess:

Port Lands Planning Framework & Transportation and Servicing Master Plan[/h]Public Meeting Details
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2014
Time: Drop-in from 6:30-7 p.m./Presentation and Facilitated Discussion from 7 to 9 p.m.
Location: EMS Training Centre (Toronto Fire Academy) - 895 Eastern Avenue, Toronto, ON (southwest corner of Eastern Avenue and Knox Avenue). See map.
TTC: Take the 501 Queen street car towards Woodbine Avenue and exit near Greenwood Avenue.
Parking: Parking is available on site.
Accessibility: Fully accessible

I won't be satisfied unless everything west of Spadina is demolished.
Plus the new Lakeshore should be more wider than 6 lanes. In fact no surface streets should be more than 6 lanes south of Eglinton ave, there should be a law forbid that from happening.

 

[bobbob911]

In what ways?

How is the walk longer if the width of the corridor is still the same? The two extra car lanes will be carved out of the big median currently in place to sustain the pillars and the on and off ramps, which you still have to cross today.

I doubt that design fits into the same space. Anyways, the point isn't so much that its worse for pedestrians, its way worse for cars and no easier for pedestrians. It's a Lose/Push at best, and a Lose/Lose at worst.

 

[bobbob911]

It is not punishing drivers. Most of those drivers shouldn't be driving there and causing all the noise and congestion, not to say loss of land value in the first place. How many of those cars are just passing by, without even entering downtown Toronto? Isn't it a stupid idea to allow thousands of cars to just pass through the downtown of a major city from one suburb to another

Those who do end up downtown, well, there is the Go train specifically for that purpose if it is just for work, and other transit options as well. Yes, it takes longer, but that's the price you pay for living too far away from some where you need to go frequently.

All of that sounds to me like punishing drivers. I guarantee the vast majority of people driving DVP<->Gardiner during rush hour are not just "passing through"!

 

[ksun]

from the report, I honestly don't see the point of the "improve" option - there is hardly any change, doesn't help to solve any problem but comes at a heavy cost.

Whether from the cost perspective, or added value, or number of "pros", removal seems to the most ideal solution. Yes, drivers will need to spend 10 more minutes on the road, well, considering the vast benefits, they just need to suck it up. We have been bearing this monstrosity for decades, didn't we?

Replace seems the next best thing, but the price tag is too high. The more you look at it, the more oppressive the "maintain" options looks.

On page 40, it seems a choice for Toronto now: do we want to be cities like NYC, Vancouver, Chicago, Boston, SF, or Los Angeles, Washington, Houston, Dallas and Atlanta?

 

[pw20]

Presentation from Waterfront Toronto press conference is online:
http://www.gardinereast.ca/sites/de...N02 - presentation - MEDIA - 2014 02 05_1.pdf

A few new artist's impressions for the "Remove" option:

These lovely fantastical drawings don't deal at ALL with the railway tracks which are just as an impediment.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I'm.. I'm... I'm actually kinda warming up to the idea of ripping it down.

 

[ksun]

These lovely fantastical drawings don't deal at ALL with the railway tracks which are just as an impediment.

one at a time. The impediment from the rail tracks shouldn't prevent us from dealing with Gardiner first.
I think the rail should eventually be buried like a normal city.

 

[FNTS]

One impediment at a time, let's start with the one that's a safety hazard and bleeds money first. Besides the underpasses under the railway tracks can be easily and cheaply be spruced up.

 

[FNTS]

one at a time. The impediment... .

Ha, beat me to it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm.. I'm... I'm actually kinda warming up to the idea of ripping it down.

Welcome to the team. I'm starting to lean towards tearing the thing down. I don't think it will be as bad for traffic as myself and others had feared. Though I'm still going to wait for a proper study of traffic patters before making a final decision.

And judging from the renders this provides us with a huge opportunity to create some of the best public realm in the city. And imagine if this was coupled with a pedestrian mall on Yonge. If we don't screw this up this could be the 'grand boulevard' that University Avenue never was.