You say the sterility is worse then the location. Look at the skydome, just as sterile as big owe, yet in the past decade it has been averaging 25,000 watching a below average team play. And it doesn't have easy access to a metro stop.
Yes from 1981-83 the Expos who had about high 20s was higher then the Jays who had in the high 10s.
Looking in 1981 they had the 4th highest attendance. In 1982 4th. In 1983 5th.
3 years does not equate to any kind of support. I stand by my perception from all casual fans I've encountered which indicated the fact that it was too far for them for even 1 game a season. Again, hence the push to have a downtown stadium.
For fans like you and I it might sound ridiculous but it was the same excuse I heard too many times. I had to bribe friends and coworkers with free hot dogs to come to the games with me. And too many times that second ticket went to waste.
 
From the Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...aunched-in-february-documents/article2173239/

TPLC’s gambit raises significant concerns about how an agency can unilaterally pursue a course of action that seems to be at odds with council policy, according to Cindy Wilkey, a lawyer who has actively participated in Waterfront Toronto’s consultation process for several years. “They have been creating mischief right from the get-go,†she said. “[Mr. Kraljevic] seems to be acting outside his role and his authority. And I think the City should be very concerned about that.â€
Click to expand...

AoD
 
The deal between Ford allies, including Councillors Peter Milczyn and Michael Thompson, and Ford foes including Paula Fletcher and Pam McConnell, includes a review of an ongoing environmental assessment of the flood protection plan that is expected to produce only “tweaks.”
Click to expand...

Never count on politics to be "expected" - the devil are in the details. And how long is the review going to take?

Rather not call it dead until it is a stick-a-fork-in-and-it's-done dead. Stay engaged and stayed active on the issue - somehow I highly doubt the Wario bros call it quit that easily.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Never count on politics to be "expected" - the devil are in the details. And how long is the review going to take?

Rather not call it dead until it is a stick-a-fork-in-and-it's-done dead. Stay engaged and stayed active on the issue - somehow I highly doubt the Wario bros call it quit that easily.

AoD
Click to expand...

This. I think it will pop again next year when the Fords try to use it to balance the 2013 budget/ make their developer campaign donors rich.
 
The deal between Ford allies, including Councillors Peter Milczyn and Michael Thompson, and Ford foes including Paula Fletcher and Pam McConnell, includes a review of an ongoing environmental assessment of the flood protection plan that is expected to produce only “tweaks.â€
Click to expand...

Why compromise? What tweaks? "We will create a [STRIKE]naturalized[/STRIKE] river mouth, unsustainable developments, and [STRIKE]beautiful[/STRIKE] public parks. We believe strongly in [STRIKE]public[/STRIKE] consultation." PAULA AND PAM!!!
 
“Everyone wants us to work together and sing Kumbaya so we’re going to work together with them,” he said in an interview. “We’ve got some good ideas and they’ve got some. In my opinion, with my business experience, compromise is always the best solution.” He said he is even considering taking a seat on the agency’s board of directors.
Click to expand...

Oh my god. Why Etobicoke? WHY!!! What did we ever do to you? Kumbaya and mentioning his business experience yet again. Good god you took over your dads business.

We may thank them some day? The plan was done and is now getting revisited to see if there isn't a way to cheapen it somehow.
 
Last edited:
EnviroTO:

Well, if WT signed onto it, I am fairly confident they can handle the BS. Personally I have no problem with densifying the south side of Keating Channel (but tone it down as it approach the naturalized channel) and have some more intense, touristy use at the mouth of Keating (again, transitioning back to the natural delta). Other than that the main elements of the plan should remain as is.

AoD
 
They can change the density with zoning... I don't think EA tweaks are required for that. EA tweaks are only required if altering environmental features isn't it? Going from 4 storeys to 50 doesn't require and EA does it?

If they want to intensify the land use I have no issue, if they want to chop land away from the naturalized river that isn't a good thing.
 
I doubt WT and McConnell and Fletcher would be on-side with anything that puts the fundamentals of the project in jeopardy. At this point, a lot of what we're seeing is a face-saving exercise — an attempt to put the waterfront genie back in the bottle.
 
I'd like to see mixed zoning, higher density, as well as some tourist attractions on the Portlands but I'd like to keep the Waterfront Toronto plans for rerouting the Don River. I think this area needs to be more than just a regular neighbourhood. The waterfront belongs to all Torontonians and should have something for everyone. The Central Waterfront should have high density areas that are fun and touristy but NO, not a shopping mall or ferris wheel. Oh, and what about those "ICONIC" buildings we were promised? (by Miller)
 
jje1000 said:
This. I think it will pop again next year when the Fords try to use it to balance the 2013 budget/ make their developer campaign donors rich.
Click to expand...

If that's their trip, than they could just as well be in prison by then.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top