I was kidding - lighten up.Let's get real here, in the case of the Sea-to-Sky highway we're talking about public works around an existing route - which btw, seem to have seen safety improvements post-construction:
It's something the government would have undertaken on its' own, so let's not be facetious as if we're talking about wholesale destruction of habitat just for the sake of the games.
It's another example of successive governments humming and haaaing over a project for decades until they finally had to commit to a firm deadline because of the games.
I was kidding - lighten up.
Clearly Rouge Park needs to be paved over as a bus parking lot to make up for the fact that there isn't enough time to build any new subway lines by 2024.
Messing in what way? Instead of acres and acres of condos, some of it would be an Olympic park. Of course assuming the Portlands are still the site.Personally I'd be more worried about them messing with the existing WT plans instead (and that's something I am watching very, very closely).
Messing in what way? Instead of acres and acres of condos, some of it would be an Olympic park. Of course assuming the Portlands are still the site.
I'd rather have anything but more condos. Condos are a good piece of the puzzle, but it seems WT puts too much weight on them.
Those things would be untouchable, but I would put the Olympic Park on Villiers and have it swap names with Olympic Island (who the hell named that??)The new mouth of the Don, etc. The details of the plans (where the condos/housing are, what not) may vary, but I want these broad strokes to stay, and I will be quite annoyed if those got ditched. Olympics is not a carte blanche - it should work within the existing frameworks - especially if you are going to argue that the games are a catalyst to move things forward on the various files.
Most of the Port Lands project is flood protection so I doubt the mouth of the Don/flood plains etc. would change. Especially since millions have already been spent on planning.
Looks like it used to be called the Athletic Grounds as late as 1903 and Olympic Island by 1918:
Most people who are against the games in a city like Toronto have only a token understanding of the costs and factors involved. As someone who is quite fiscally conservative and has also researched this topic to death (spent years on the various Olympic forums among other things) I can state categorically they would be a surefire gamechanger for this city's longterm tourism, culture, sense of identity, swagger, infrastructure, public realm (short-term tourism may have only moderate effects) and would really put us on the map for a cost that can be managed comfortably if we play it smart. Even without Agenda 2020 we could still keep the Games staging costs including infrastructure costs to significantly less than $10 billion (including federal/provincial contributions). The cost to bid can be completely covered by sponsors so that in itself should not even be an issue.
Given that the 2024 Olympics and the 2026 World Cup are both being awarded in the same year (2017), it doesn't make any sense to me to somehow financially justify building a new Olympic stadium based on also using it for the World Cup. There is absolutely no guarantee that will happen.Has it been forgotten that the CSA plans to bid for the 2026 world cup as well?
The Olympic Stadium would be used for matches and definitely for the final. Would that make it more financially viable assuming we're awarded the World Cup? The costs would be split and factored in both events no?
Imagine 2024 Olympics, 2025 World Fair, 2026 World Cup!! I'd be excited!
It's OK to displace slums when you are building a futuristic city hall, no?
Gotta agree that I'm losing the plot on this whole levelled neighbourhoods thread - the Pan Am games didn't and there is still a lot of industrial brownfield space available. Which specific Toronto neighbourhoods did you have in mind?