Again: if the Plant renovation of Nathan Phillips Square hadn't gone this far, I can see the Brothers Ford opting for the cheaper solution of just plain ripping down the NPS walkways--and, I suppose, proposing to replace all that concrete expanse w/grass and trees. For you see: Toronto needs "parkland", and concrete ain't "parkland". (And of course, those dumb-cluck Ford Nation letter-writers'd probably be the sort to complain of how NPS is all grey and concrete and all that--so...)
 
Armbruster said:
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).
Click to expand...

My guess is that they want to sell land to developers in order to fund the Downsview subway extension. That way they can get downtown developers to subsidize a suburban subway line.
 
gristle said:
My guess is that they want to sell land to developers in order to fund the Downsview subway extension. That way they can get downtown developers to subsidize a suburban subway line.
Click to expand...

Now you talkin!
That is the real reason for this project cancellation in my humble opinion...
 
I don't even think they'll use the proceeds from asset sales for other capital projects, which at least could be somewhat defensible. Instead, I think they'll use one-time revenues to plug the hole in the operating budget.
 
Ahem....

gristle said:
My guess is that they want to sell land to developers in order to fund the Downsview subway extension. That way they can get downtown developers to subsidize a suburban subway line.
Click to expand...

Before speculations runs wild and everyone assumes this is the case, do we have any actual proof of this plot being hatched at city hall?
 
you guys might hate me for saying this but hear me out.... i have to say 22 million for a pedestrian bridge is a bit pricy BUT... im one who normally recognizes that when good money is spent .. then good results are shown..... results like waterfront toronto.... if your going to do it.. do it right the first time right??.... but as much as i dislike Ford for all the great things he's canceling... you must realize that spending that good money 24/7 will get you bankrupt... and it cant be used everywhere at once..... one day this bridge will be built... whether it's as pricy or dynamic we cant tell... i personally think that if we need it but cant afford spending 22 m right now.. then just find a lower price but still good quality and nice design..... although this bridge would've kicked ass and is definitly what we need.... thanks for listening :)
 
Last edited:
People are upset that the bridge was already budgeted for, and the news of the cancellation came around the same time that the Ford's gave the police a hefty raise despite declining crime rates.
 
$22m is not out-of-step with costs seen elsewhere for feature bridges like what was proposed here. This would have been one of those things that defined Toronto. A landmark.

Yes, ambitious. But shouldn't we be ambitious? Shouldn't we try to build great, functional, memorable things? Must we always settle for mediocrity?
 
GraphicMatt said:
$22m is not out-of-step with costs seen elsewhere for feature bridges like what was proposed here. This would have been one of those things that defined Toronto. A landmark.

Yes, ambitious. But shouldn't we be ambitious? Shouldn't we try to build great, functional, memorable things? Must we always settle for mediocrity?
Click to expand...

like i said in my post above.... yes we should build great ambitious landmarks i agree... but... there comes a time when that money is not available... and it depends if you want to... wait it out till you get the money, build mediocre, or just flush the whole project... trust me when i say i wanted this just as much as you.
 
tkip said:
Before speculations runs wild and everyone assumes this is the case, do we have any actual proof of this plot being hatched at city hall?
Click to expand...

If you note, that is why I used the word "guess" in my post. The usage clearly indicates speculation. However, I have little doubt that given the location of the land, and the need for money, that selling the land is a serious possibility. Since Mayors Bob and Doug promised a subway line that is presently unfunded, they will need money. Selling city assets - like land - to developers is one way to raise that kind of cash.
 
Automation Gallery said:
Hahaha....Its all manufactured rubbish by the same anti-Ford clan.:D
Click to expand...

As noted, I used the word "guess." And I have actually heard that the city-owned land in question might go on the market. There is nothing remotely unreasonable about this speculation. In case you haven't heard, the city does sell its assets from time to time.
 
toronto3 said:
like i said in my post above.... yes we should build great ambitious landmarks i agree... but... there comes a time when that money is not available... and it depends if you want to... wait it out till you get the money, build mediocre, or just flush the whole project... trust me when i say i wanted this just as much as you.
Click to expand...

We should all be very skeptical of the claim that the hypothetical "cheaper" design will actually cost less. As I mentioned earlier, the confidential staff report says the cost of the bridge will "skyrocket" if it is delayed. The prospect of skyrocketing costs would normally make principled conservatives more cautious. But Ford and Shiner are not true conservatives. They are performance artists and culture-warriors for whom the feeling of cost-cutting is more important than actually cutting costs.

If we could all go back in time when it was still possible to choose between a "cheaper" and a "fancier" bridge design, then we could debate the tradeoffs between vision and cost. But are well past that point now. The design is the design. If the bridge is not built now, it will either never be built or it will be built more expensively no matter how "cheap" the later design may be.
 
GraphicMatt said:
$22m is not out-of-step with costs seen elsewhere for feature bridges like what was proposed here. This would have been one of those things that defined Toronto. A landmark.
Click to expand...
Doesn't a landmark require both the design, and the location. Millennium bridge is such a huge success partly because it is so well used.

I haven't seen the studies for this bridge - what is the projected usage compared to other nearby bridges (Dufferin, Strachan, Bathurst, Spadina, etc)? It's such a long bridge ... will it really have that kind of usage that an iconic bridge deserves?

Ford has proposed a similar bridge to Toronto Island ... perhaps these would be better locations for such an iconic design.
 
nfitz said:
Ford has proposed a similar bridge to Toronto Island ... perhaps these would be better locations for such an iconic design.
Click to expand...

Of course, anything over water and in our harbourfront would ..the beauty of this bridge would be lost with it next to an expressway zig-zaging over rail lands to a dog park.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top