News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

Juan_Lennon416 said:
Again with the "Because they did it that way, Toronto would do the same thing" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Toronto doesn't have a great record in the intelligent design or on-time on-budget delivery of transit and public realm projects. Nor do we appear capable of learning from the experience of other cities, as demonstrated by Council's decision to ignore the mass of evidence from other cities and expert analysis that overwhelmingly supported the Gardiner tear-down option. So it's not unreasonable to conclude that Toronto would learn nothing from Boston's Big Dig.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rbt
Juan_Lennon416 said:
Again with the "Because they did it that way, Toronto would do the same thing" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Actually no, even if we could we shouldn't have it all as green space, and it certainly was underwhelming in the case of Boston. They should have used the opportunity to try and stitch the urban fabric back a bit more. It also demonstrates how disruptive the ramps can be if handled badly.

AoD
 
Juan_Lennon416 said:
Again with the "Because they did it that way, Toronto would do the same thing" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That was not my point, but I can tell you that what Toronto would most certainly do the same is be wildly late and over budget, hugely disruptive, postpone transit improvements, be saddled by debt for many decades. And just like Boston, the end result will be laden with design flaws, fail to live up to its lofty promises, and traffic will not improve.

Instead of looking to Boston, Toronto should take inspiration from New York (among other cities) who have removed their expressways entirely. Contrary to Euphoria's beliefs, retaining a piece of car infrastructure is not bold or visionary in this day and age, no matter how many $billions are wasted on it. And in Seattle's case, the only reason they are tunnelling a highway is because politicians rejected the much cheaper recommended alternative of constructing a 4-lane street accompanied by transit improvements. They get what they deserve.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Actually no, even if we could we shouldn't have it all as green space, and it certainly was underwhelming in the case of Boston. They should have used the opportunity to try and stitch the urban fabric back a bit more. It also demonstrates how disruptive the ramps can be if handled badly.
Click to expand...

I have a hard time imagining how a highway off ramp would not be disruptive. Tunnel heads seem to think that burying a highway will completely turn the public realm into paradise, as if there will be no ventilation fans and off ramps that take up space and dump high volumes of traffic onto city streets.
 
Stop being apologists for mediocrity. At the very least, let's get the option of an underground toll highway combined with DRL costed out. All I care about is removal of that eyesore of an elevated expressway. Since removal without some sort of expressway replacement is a non-starter with the public, we need to look at best case scenarios. When I first saw the results of the Big Dig several years ago, the surface where the expressway once stood seemed like a no man's land, but that has changed. Between the outdoor market and the North End are well frequented gardens, canopies, and giant swings. I agree that too much unprogrammed open space detracts from the urban experience, so intensify the area with well-designed mixed use buildings, monuments, public squares, tree-lined boulevards, anything but that blight. Could you imagine an elevated expressway running through Soho in New York or the Tuileries in Paris? Please.
 
Euphoria said:
Stop being apologists for mediocrity. At the very least, let's get the option of an underground toll highway combined with DRL costed out. All I care about is removal of that eyesore of an elevated expressway. Since removal without some sort of expressway replacement is a non-starter with the public, we need to look at best case scenarios. When I first saw the results of the Big Dig several years ago, the surface where the expressway once stood seemed like a no man's land, but that has changed. Between the outdoor market and the North End are well frequented gardens, canopies, and giant swings. I agree that too much unprogrammed open space detracts from the urban experience, so intensify the area with well-designed mixed use buildings, monuments, public squares, tree-lined boulevards, anything but that blight. Could you imagine an elevated expressway running through Soho in New York or the Tuileries in Paris? Please.
Click to expand...

The urban design and landscape architecture outcome of the Central Artery Project is mediocrity.

AoD
 
Euphoria said:
Stop being apologists for mediocrity. At the very least, let's get the option of an underground toll highway combined with DRL costed out. All I care about is removal of that eyesore of an elevated expressway. Since removal without some sort of expressway replacement is a non-starter with the public, we need to look at best case scenarios. When I first saw the results of the Big Dig several years ago, the surface where the expressway once stood seemed like a no man's land, but that has changed. Between the outdoor market and the North End are well frequented gardens, canopies, and giant swings. I agree that too much unprogrammed open space detracts from the urban experience, so intensify the area with well-designed mixed use buildings, monuments, public squares, tree-lined boulevards, anything but that blight. Could you imagine an elevated expressway running through Soho in New York or the Tuileries in Paris? Please.
Click to expand...

I think that burying the Gardiner would cost so much that private partners who are planning on tolling it would not be interested. Replacing the Gardiner with a toll highway with tolls comparable to Highway 407 would be unpopular.

The proposal to replace the eastern end of the Gardiner with a new elevated highway is not that expensive, compared to the cost of burying the Gardiner or the downtown relief line. Tearing it down and putting large amounts of traffic on Lake Shore would almost certainly cause severe traffic congestion problems and I can't see how that is a serious proposal.
 
andrewpmk said:
I think that burying the Gardiner would cost so much that private partners who are planning on tolling it would not be interested. Replacing the Gardiner with a toll highway with tolls comparable to Highway 407 would be unpopular.

The proposal to replace the eastern end of the Gardiner with a new elevated highway is not that expensive, compared to the cost of burying the Gardiner or the downtown relief line. Tearing it down and putting large amounts of traffic on Lake Shore would almost certainly cause severe traffic congestion problems and I can't see how that is a serious proposal.
Click to expand...

Completely agree. The economics for them would require tolls that I would imagine would be much higher than 407.

And then this could happen: here http://tollroadsnews.com/news/brisb...months-operation---horrible-traffic-forecasts and here http://tollroadsnews.com/news/sydney-cross-city-tunnel-bankrupt---receivers-take-over
 
http://tollroadsnews.com/news/brisb...months-operation---horrible-traffic-forecasts
Click to expand...

OT. Interesting quote in that article, another case of "not doing the research"
Inner Brisbane was not going to grow by 3.9% a year for a decade, although no doubt there were urbanist planners who wanted that. No inner area of any western city anywhere in the world is growing like that. Most are barely growing, many are losing population.
Click to expand...

Clearly someone forgot to tell them about Toronto, the population of our downtown area grew by 48% over the last 10 years.
From 2006-2011, the increase was 18% (168,957 to 199,330 http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2014/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-69192.pdf ) And now it's believed to be about 250,000, which would be a growth of 25% from 2011-2016. Compounded year over year that's an average increase of 4.0% over the last decade! Projection is that the population of downtown area will continue to swell to 475,000 within 25 years. An increase of 90%(3.6% per year/or 2.4% compounded) and of a far larger base than Brisbane.
 
Yup, nothing to inspire in Toronto. No technical marvels or serious city building other than private condos and the narrow strips of park land and public art the developers are required to provide. Also, saying modernity is an anachronism is an oxymoron. Nothing grand will get built in Toronto. You're not getting a DRL either. You're too cheap.
 
Euphoria said:
Yup, nothing to inspire in Toronto. No technical marvels or serious city building other than private condos and the narrow strips of park land and public art the developers are required to provide. Also, saying modernity is an anachronism is an oxymoron. Nothing grand will get built in Toronto. You're not getting a DRL either. You're too cheap.
Click to expand...
A buried Gardiner wouldn't even make my top 10 list of grand things to build in Toronto.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top