Oh wow I can't believe he actually replied..

I don't understand why the federal/provincial government hasn't provided a cent for it.. is this not a national historic site, and significant in Canadian history?? Ridiculous. I bet in the US the government would put forward some funding if Gettysburg or Bull Run was planning something like this for their bicentennial!
 
The Feds and the Province allocated $5 million each for the Fort York Visitor Centre, but nothing for the bridge. It's a shame really.
 
Is it impossible for this city to build anything without expecting federal or provincial money? This bridge would have been a public amenity for many decades to come. It may come as a surprise, but a later version will be more expensive.
 
gristle said:
Is it impossible for this city to build anything without expecting federal or provincial money? This bridge would have been a public amenity for many decades to come. It may come as a surprise, but a later version will be more expensive.
Click to expand...

Funny. This is just the sort of project you would expect to see significant fed/prov interest. I suppose the design of the bridge together with the visitor centre wasn't concieved as a set piece early enough in the process to gather steam. One of those " next big things " people in these threads like to ponder, the bridge almost made it through though, and that would have been great. Like a lot of things in Toronto, it would have emerged more as lucky happenstance, than any coherently planned and executed public feature.
 
There were a number of potential funding strategies on the table. John Tory really wanted the bridge to go forward, with the idea that the business community could provide some funding.

Even ignoring that possibility, however, a $22 million dollar capital debt isn't such a crazy idea for a city with $9B in annual revenue and more than $18B in assets. Yes, there are concerns about the city's long-term debt and annual carrying costs, but simply not building anything isn't a viable long-term solution.
 
Interesting you mention JT. I wonder if some of the red tories who've supported Ford are starting to second guess their allegiances.

I still think that the cancellation/quasi-indefinite deferment has more to do with ideology and perhaps some sort of payback than any platitudes about costs.
 
<shaking my head> All I know is that having a tin ear to the red tory & business communities is probably the dumbest thing a right wing politician can do. The difference between being perceived as a lone wolf and a loose cannon can be fatal to a career dependent on big-tent politics.

Another year of these antics and it's not hard to imagine that a lot of bagmen will quietly gravitate towards a different horse for 2014.
 
Indeed. The Underpass Park groundbreaking was another example of just how out of step the Fords can be with even their avowed co-Conservatives. Jim Flaherty was there, all smiles, and talking about the importance of not dropping the ball on the Waterfront while the municipal government was represented by Pam McConnell. I think the Fords may not realize that the extreme narrowness of their vision for the city isn't really shared by many people at all--even people on the right. This may become much more evident during the upcoming budget process, and we are seeing it already on Council.
 
 
Last edited:
Bob and Doug would support Underpass Park if it were just an underpass leading to a stadium. That'd be their bowl of gravy.
 
If only we could wedge a football stadium into Fort York--then we'd have our lovely bridge.
 
My understanding is that the real reason Ford, Shiner et al voted against the bridge was because they want to develop parkland around the bridge (which apparently would not have been possible with the proposed bridge design). They said that the real cost of the bridge was not just the extra $4 million, but several tens of millions more in lost development opportunities (never mind that all parks and public spaces carry similar opportunity costs).

But I thought that City Council has already voted to keep these public lands as parkland, am I wrong?

If the anti-parkland, pro-development councillors want to pave over precious greenspace in the Fort York condo area, don't they still have another battle to fight? They have to get the approval of the TEYCC or the Planning and Growth Committee, do they not? And if they can't this approval, then doesn't that take away their biggest reason to oppose the bridge? And given the confidential staff report that says the cost of even a "cheaper" bridge will skyrocket if there are further delays, wouldn't principled fiscal conservatives be obliged to support the bridge as planned, or admit it will never be built at all?

What is Mike Layton doing to protect the scarce parkland in the Fort York area? If he can ensure that the land Shiner covets will forever remain parkland, then wouldn't the bridge be back in play?
 
That isolated triangular lot sandwiched between the railways just east of Ordnance street that the bridge would have straddled is hardly ideal park space. I have a vision of a grand 50 + storey flatiron there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top