sjc
Active Member
If you tear down union and get rid of the trains, you could build an airport there which would remove many of the objections people have to closing the island airport. I'd much prefer the airport to be on Front Street.
|
|
|
If you tear down union and get rid of the trains, you could build an airport there which would remove many of the objections people have to closing the island airport. I'd much prefer the airport to be on Front Street.
We could use Yonge Street as a runway!
For this location, both. I offered my opinions under the Porter Airlines thread way back when.
You'd tear down the original 1939 terminal building?!?!?
http://www.pc.gc.ca/culture/proj/urbain/cartes-maps/index_e.asp?mapid=4&buildingid=32
From a heritage standpoint, you deserve to be kneecapped.
You'd tear down the original 1939 terminal building?!?!?
http://www.pc.gc.ca/culture/proj/urbain/cartes-maps/index_e.asp?mapid=4&buildingid=32
From a heritage standpoint, you deserve to be kneecapped.
It's actually a cool building for when they eventually turn the Island into a park....though that's a long time off.
And it's for that reason that idiots like dt toronto geek should have their testicles ripped out of their body. Heritage philistinism like that is an insult to the anti-airport argument...
And it's for that reason that idiots like dt toronto geek should have their testicles ripped out of their body. Heritage philistinism like that is an insult to the anti-airport argument...
And it's for that reason that idiots like dt toronto geek should have their testicles ripped out of their body. Heritage philistinism like that is an insult to the anti-airport argument...
OK, I'll take one threat of battery (pardon the pun), I won't take two. If you want to debate the merits of the terminal I'm pleased to do so but I won't stand for your second childish threat or being called an idiot due to a blanket statement regarding a distant view if, ironically, a Toronto landmark is torn down.
Grow up dude.
Personally, I feel that message-boarding mediocrities who use Edge-listener-ese terms like "dude" are blanket-deserving of testicles ripped out, but, anyhoo...
Okay, let's debate. And keep in mind that what the Parks Canada link I posted above contains something of a "heritage report" element; so essentially, it's enough to stop you dead in your tracks.
And also keep in mind that, arguably and with a bit of a creative-reuse vision, decommissioning the airport might be better for the old terminal and hangar buildings, which might otherwise be overwhelmed, overstressed, and endangered by the practicalities of a functioning airport.
So, given that, why would you still think this should be torn down?
You might as well claim that all 40s/50s air base physical-plant vestige at Downsview be torn down, too.