[hawc]

"The Lakeshore is also a barrier" is not a valid counterpoint to that assertion.

The Lakeshore is as big a barrier if not bigger to the the lake as the Gardiner. One you have to physically cross and cars could actually hit you. The other you just walk under. It's like saying planes flying over you are a bigger barrier than a river you have to swim across.

 

[ADRM]

The Lakeshore is as big a barrier if not bigger to the the lake as the Gardiner. One you have to physically cross and cars could actually hit you. The other you just walk under. It's like saying planes flying over you are a bigger barrier than a river you have to swim across.

You're stating it as fact, but it's an opinion and it's just not one shared widely. It's also one that's obviously shared outside of Toronto, as cities all over the world are tearing down elevated expressways.

I couldn't think of a less compelling argument than "there are 2 major impediments to something, therefore it doesn't make sense to remove 1 of them."

 

[Tuscani01]

You're stating it as fact, but it's an opinion and it's just not one shared widely. It's also one that's obviously shared outside of Toronto, as cities all over the world are tearing down elevated expressways.

I couldn't think of a less compelling argument than "there are 2 major impediments to something, therefore it doesn't make sense to remove 1 of them."

I feel like the argument is simply embellished in order to support removing elevated highways like the Gardiner. I agree with hawc, despite wanting to see the Gardiner come down also. The Gardiner isn't nearly the barrier that Lakeshore Blvd is. I lived in CityPlace for years and it was always Lakeshore that felt like the issue, never the Gardiner (save for the crossing at the West side of Spadina under the Gardiner. Even the East side was easy to cross, with a Gardiner ramp right there. You simply look in one direction and cross. It's Lakeshore where you wait forever to cross, and then only get a short period of time before you have to wait again.

Even at Dan Leckie where there are no Gardiner Ramps, its a pain to cross. Lakeshore is too wide, and I'd hate to see it widened to accommodate the removal of the Gardiner. The best outcome in my opinion would be the removal of the Gardiner without having to accommodate extra traffic on Lakeshore.

 

[hawc]

You're stating it as fact, but it's an opinion.

It's not a fact that you walk UNDER the Gardiner and walk ACROSS the Lakeshore???

 

[ADRM]

It's not a fact that you walk UNDER the Gardiner and walk ACROSS the Lakeshore???

Your sarcasm indicates you think that fact makes your argument more compelling, which is odd.

 

[ADRM]

I feel like the argument is simply embellished in order to support removing elevated highways like the Gardiner. I agree with hawc, despite wanting to see the Gardiner come down also. The Gardiner isn't nearly the barrier that Lakeshore Blvd is. I lived in CityPlace for years and it was always Lakeshore that felt like the issue, never the Gardiner (save for the crossing at the West side of Spadina under the Gardiner. Even the East side was easy to cross, with a Gardiner ramp right there. You simply look in one direction and cross. It's Lakeshore where you wait forever to cross, and then only get a short period of time before you have to wait again.

Even at Dan Leckie where there are no Gardiner Ramps, its a pain to cross. Lakeshore is too wide, and I'd hate to see it widened to accommodate the removal of the Gardiner. The best outcome in my opinion would be the removal of the Gardiner without having to accommodate extra traffic on Lakeshore.

But that's the same argument. If you have 2 bad things and you are presented with the opportunity to remove 1 of those bad things without being forced to accept significant tradeoffs for so doing, why on earth would you not feel compelled to seize that opportunity?

 

[Tuscani01]

But that's the same argument. If you have 2 bad things and you are presented with the opportunity to remove 1 of those bad things without being forced to accept significant tradeoffs for so doing, why on earth would you not feel compelled to seize that opportunity?

Again, I have no problem with removing the Gardiner. That is my preference. My issue is with the Gardiner being portrayed as this great barrier. In reality, it's not. It being a barrier is not my reasoning for removing it and from my own personal experience living that close to it, it never was the barrier that many make it out to be.

I want to see it gone because it results in traffic being funneled towards 3 points downtown instead of spread out throughout the network. I want to see it gone because it costs too much to maintain. I want to see it gone because it isn't even remotely an attractive piece of infrastructure.

 

[ADRM]

Again, I have no problem with removing the Gardiner. That is my preference. My issue is with the Gardiner being portrayed as this great barrier. In reality, it's not. It being a barrier is not my reasoning for removing it and from my own personal experience living that close to it, it never was the barrier that many make it out to be.

I want to see it gone because it results in traffic being funneled towards 3 points downtown instead of spread out throughout the network. I want to see it gone because it costs too much to maintain. I want to see it gone because it isn't even remotely an attractive piece of infrastructure.

I mean, we're arguing towards the same end point, so take my dissent towards your first point with a grain of salt, but I just don't agree that it's not a barrier (even if it's a mostly psychological one), and I know that's a viewpoint that is widely held by both residents and tourists alike.

Aesthetics matter in urban design (as you indicate in your last sentence), and that's what I think presents the "barrier" here.

 

[Tuscani01]

Aesthetics matter in urban design (as you indicate in your last sentence), and that's what I think presents the "barrier" here.

For sure! And I see that point. But then why aren't people pushing for a better looking Eastern Gardiner? I mean, its very likely to be built, and it seems like Tory is never going to back down on this. I've done quite a bit of traveling to cities and countries with elevated highways that look much better than the Gardiner. Using piers instead of bents would go a long way towards minimizing the issue of aesthetics. Raising it slightly more than it is today would also help.

My worry now is that we are going to get stuck with a Gardiner that has all of the aesthetic issues of the one that exists today, simply because everyone is still pushing for removal as design and construction move closer to happening. Unfortunately, I don't think the "Gardiner is a barrier" group would see that as an improvement - hence why I don't see the argument helping.

 

[TOareaFan]

My opinion (if anyone other than me cares) is that the degree of which something is an impediment/blockage is directly related to what is on the other side.

I think (on average) I am older than most here....and I do recall how little foot traffic there was under the Gardiner/Rail Corridor in the central core not that long ago. When the neighbourhood we now know as SouthCore started to develop....low and behold people found that you can make it under there and while for a few hundred yards it is not as pleasant a walk as you might like....it does not block or impede you from getting there.

It started, a wee bit with SkyDome (but their building of the footbridge from Front gave a route that did not mean "going under") but really took off with the AirCanada Centre and now on the central roads I don't think anyone sees it as an impediment at all.

That is not to say we can't look at improving the situation (and I said before the ramp take down that this thread used to be about is an example) but in the areas where we still see/think of the Gardiner as an impediment to foot traffic.....perhaps we need to look at "what's on the other side" maybe there is the answer to why few are walking down and under the twin "impediments".

 

[Tuscani01]

My opinion (if anyone other than me cares) is that the degree of which something is an impediment/blockage is directly related to what is on the other side.

I think (on average) I am older than most here....and I do recall how little foot traffic there was under the Gardiner/Rail Corridor in the central core not that long ago. When the neighbourhood we now know as SouthCore started to develop....low and behold people found that you can make it under there and while for a few hundred yards it is not as pleasant a walk as you might like....it does not block or impede you from getting there.

It started, a wee bit with SkyDome (but their building of the footbridge from Front gave a route that did not mean "going under") but really took off with the AirCanada Centre and now on the central roads I don't think anyone sees it as an impediment at all.

That is not to say we can't look at improving the situation (and I said before the ramp take down that this thread used to be about is an example) but in the areas where we still see/think of the Gardiner as an impediment to foot traffic.....perhaps we need to look at "what's on the other side" maybe there is the answer to why few are walking down and under the twin "impediments".

I think Under Gardiner is going to be a good solution for now, at least for the West side. Then again, it could become a complete flop. I guess it will be a good case study for this whole debate. If Under Gardiner becomes a success, the idea of the Gardiner being a barrier will be somewhat weakened. If the space remains empty, perhaps there is some truth to the psychological effect the Gardiner has on how people use and travel through a space.

The ramps at Underpass Park seem to have become a popular space. (the weather protection they offer is also a benefit)

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Why does this thread exist? Should't everything be under the "Gardiner' thread?

If anyone wants to get beyond that, may I point everyone to the broader Gardiner Expressway thread.

 

[georgevicbell]

Before they build the park they should use the space as a temporary streetcar loop while they expand the bay tunnel for the eastern waterfront LRT...otherwise they are going to have to stop service from spadina while they do it...gives them the ability to get in there and do it fast rather than try to keep it operating while they renovate.

Of course we have to wait three years for a waterfront reset - for something that we all know has to happen anyways...and will only get more expensive as the area gets built up...

 

[darth_freeman]

I think that's a wild oversimplification. I don't hate cars but I hate the Gardiner, precisely and only because it's a major barrier to the waterfront. I can't tell you how many people - both from Toronto and from other cities/countries - who've said exactly that to me.

It's just hard to take those kind of anecdotes seriously. Compare the Gardiner crossings of Bathurst, Strachan, Dufferin which are all very walkable and pleasant, with Spadina, Simcoe, Jarvis. What do those have in common? It's Lake Shore that makes crossing a nightmare.

When people say crossing the Gardiner sucks, they are mostly likely referring to Lake Shore.

 

[salsa]

It's just hard to take those kind of anecdotes seriously. Compare the Gardiner crossings of Bathurst, Strachan, Dufferin which are all very walkable and pleasant, with Spadina, Simcoe, Jarvis. What do those have in common? It's Lake Shore that makes crossing a nightmare.

When people say crossing the Gardiner sucks, they are mostly likely referring to Lake Shore.

Many argue that Lakeshore is the real problem and not the Gardiner, but they say that as if the shitty pedestrian experience has no relation to the Gardiner sitting above it. Almost as if Lakeshore would look just like this even without the Gardiner.

On the other hand I have no issues with the crossings you mention like Bathurst. But that's because of the extra height, and because there are no off ramps there and the Lakeshore is not shoved directly under the elevated highway. That makes a big difference.