[taal]

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that.

You really need to ignore UD when he goes on rants like that ... no need to provoke him
Trust me, it won't lead to anything constructive.

Anyway, there is some valid discussion going on here. All we're doing is transferring the traffic that's in the "air" down to the pedestrian level. Is this really a good thing? In the end will traffic just divert to other areas.
I agree pedestrians need to be put first but the question is, will this accomplish this.

I think it might, clearly the speed limits are going to be reasonable in this entire area - when traffic is even moving. From an efficiency point of view and travel time this may be a very bad decision unlike what the EA will undoubtedly reveal but for pedestrians this should be a win.

 

[Therion]

There was a study quoted in Scientific American about 3 months ago that showed tearing down highways doesn't actually contribute to increased traffic, as counter-intuitive as it seems. People end up taking different routes, and more public transportation. It kinda evens out, apparently. So with that in mind, screw the Gardiner.

 

[urbandreamer]

I can't remember whether I like kissing the Gardiner or not, but I do know this is what I was staring at today:

 

[vegeta_skyline]

Wicked shot! Awsome to see the MLS towers in there.
Excuse the language, but their going to be some skinny b*tches.

All the great cities of the world have deadly traffic. Have you ever seen traffic in London, Paris, New York, or Tokyo? World class city = deadly traffic. Great cities are more about pedestrians, not cars, and Toronto seems to be moving in that direction.

None of those world class cities have to deal with temperatures as brutal as ours. I'm surprised people haven't figured that out yet. Just maybe thats one of the main reasons why people prefer to drive. Because they’d rather not have to deal with the weather. Obviously theres many other reasons, that just so happens to be my reason.

And why must people go on and on about this whole pursuit to be "world class"? Toronto is not going to be world class in the same way as those cities in any case. But nonetheless, to me Toronto is everything I already want it to be, notwithstanding a few improvements.

This whole argument about the Gardner being an barrier to the waterfront makes absolutely no sense.

Its certainly not an actually physical barrier, seeing as how you can walk under it at any point, unless your a retard and can't avoid walking into one of the pillar supporting it. You can't do that with the rail line, yet no ones purposing to take that down. Because people obviously realize its a vital transportation assets. Funny how they don't realize the same thing applies to the Gardner.

Where oh where will all the traffic go once you take it down? its not going to magically disappear. Take it down and all those people who use it are going to funnel their way in and out of the core though local streets. 200,000, more vehicles a day exiting the city core through already overcrowded roads such as the Lakeshore, King, Queen, Dundas, Bathurst, Ave, Young, Mt Pleasant, etc, etc.
More cars on local streets, sounds incredibly pedestrian friendly to me…

As for public transit, how are you going to force people into a system that doesn't have the space capacity to deal with it? The Young-University line is already operating at capacity with the Bloor-Danforth line not far behind. Most of the purposed transit city lines will only funnel more people onto these crowed subway lines. Same goes for Union station and the GO trains. Ever wonder why GO has such a bad rep for being late? Its because of the amount of people using the system. Obviously there are plans in place to upgrade the both systems but its going to be difficult to meet increasing demand, nevermind the massive instantaneous surge that would be created from removing the Gardner.

As for it being a visible/psychological barrier, I'm sorry I can barely even see it from the waterfront these days what with all the glass, concert & precast in my face. Theres already a wall at the waterfront, a much bigger one that's far more visible then any elevated highway, one long solid wall of nice & not so nice condos.

 

[Torontovibe]

There was a study quoted in Scientific American about 3 months ago that showed tearing down highways doesn't actually contribute to increased traffic, as counter-intuitive as it seems. People end up taking different routes, and more public transportation. It kinda evens out, apparently. So with that in mind, screw the Gardiner.

Exactly! That is the case every time. And while Toronto might not be a pedestrian's dream city, it is changing fast. It is transforming daily, to the benefit of those who actually prefer to walk. (or use public transit) Even cycling seems to be getting more popular. I say bring on the gridlock until it forces people out of their cars.

 

[christiesplits]

Is any one else slightly underwhelmed by the towers? Or is it just that the base is so beautifully finished that the towers inherently pale in comparison?

 

[christof53]

This whole argument about the Gardner being an barrier to the waterfront makes absolutely no sense.

Its certainly not an actually physical barrier, seeing as how you can walk under it at any point, unless your a retard and can't avoid walking into one of the pillar supporting it. You can't do that with the rail line, yet no ones purposing to take that down. Because people obviously realize its a vital transportation assets. Funny how they don't realize the same thing applies to the Gardner.

When people say it's a barrier, they don't mean it physically prevents someone from getting to the waterfront. The waterfront should be welcomed and integrated with the city, and the Gardiner prevents this integration by forcing people to walk underneath a crumbling, loud, and ugly highway. The waterfront has so much potential for Toronto as a liveable city, and the Gardiner does nothing but squander it.

 

[Hydrogen]

The rail corridor is much more of a barrier than the Gardiner. In fact, it's like a canyon.

But I don't view that as a reason the get rid of the rail corridor.

 

[OldManKensey]

Is any one else slightly underwhelmed by the towers? Or is it just that the base is so beautifully finished that the towers inherently pale in comparison?

While I generally like the towers -- especially the slim profile that has been noted so many times before -- I haven't decided if I like the little light green or white (I might be slightly colour blind) squares that are used on the cladding about a thrid of the way around each tower. They look a little bit like an unnecessary add-on to me...but I'm hoping that when the towers reach their full height the effect will be much better than it is now.

 

[Tewder]

I'm all for a pedestrian-centric city but banishing cars without an adequate system for public transit first, in and through the city, is simply foolish. People need an efficient and practical way to get around a world-class Toronto, and in the meantime they will hop in the car. This isn't a crime against humanity, it is simply human nature. So all of you who dream of a European lifestyle in Toronto, sans automobile, must be realistic and consider the fantastic public transit systems they have there first.

 

[Archivist]

Though we've had this discussion a million times, I agree that both the Gardiner and the Rail Corridor are barriers. For me, though, the Gardiner is far worse. I would argue that the fact that there are many corridors under (and a few over) the rail tracks designed for pedestrians shows that the rail tracks are demonstratably more permeable than the Gardiner. The PATH system currently extends past the rail tracks in a few places, and will do so in more shortly. The PATH system doesn't go past the Gardiner, anywhere, and won't with any current extension.

The height of the Gardiner, the noise associated with it and the on-ramps and off-ramps (many of which don't have pedestrian crosswalks) are a barrier. If I were a woman, I would not feel safe in the night walking under the Gardiner, with it's open caverous spaces easy to hide in, while I wouldn't worry too much about the SkyWalk or the corridor to the Air Canada Centre.

A barrier need not be physical, it can be noise and visual as well.

At any rate, I always think the "Rail Corridor" vs. "Gardiner" as barriers debate is fairly sterile. They are both barriers in their own way. For me, the deciding factor is that the rail corridor is the future of transportation in Toronto, whether we like it or not, and no one is arguing for it to be dismantled as being unnecessary. The very argument is impossible to make. The Gardiner is a relic of the past. Arguably still needed (though I personally don't believe this, but I accept that a valid argument in its favour is possible), it would never in a milliion years be built today. Our future is less oil consumputive and the Gardiner will not exist, no possible way, in 50 years. It's a matter of when and how (again, I should say that I have sympathy for those who argue about building up alternatives first).

 

[ellett44]

A Third Barrier

With all this talk about the rail corridor and Gardiner being barriers to the waterfront and as such, reasons why people in this city don't head down there, I'd like to suggest a third barrier, which is the central waterfront itself. Perhaps people don't go down to the waterfront, because of the conception that a. there is nothing to do and b. its ugly. With great strides being made (Slips, the further naturalization of Tommy Thompson) and being planned (Queen's Quay, Sherbourne Park, etc.) it will be interesting to see how it all plays out and whether we will still be discussing what the true barrier is - rail or Gardiner - or whether will be actually on the waterfront (sipping on a fine beverage on one of the many outdoor cafes lining Queens Quay, [crosses fingers]) when its all said and done.

 

[Automation Gallery]

With all this talk about the rail corridor and Gardiner being barriers to the waterfront and as such, reasons why people in this city don't head down there, I'd like to suggest a third barrier, which is the central waterfront itself. Perhaps people don't go down to the waterfront, because of the conception that a. there is nothing to do and b. its ugly. With great strides being made (Slips, the further naturalization of Tommy Thompson) and being planned (Queen's Quay, Sherbourne Park, etc.) it will be interesting to see how it all plays out and whether we will still be discussing what is the true barrier - rail or Gardiner - when its all said and done.

Years ago as i recall there was some plan of even burying the Gardiner Expy in Lake Ontario by the waters edge, thus extending the waterfront out to more greenspace and beach. I guess now that is all a fantasy.

 

[OldManKensey]

With all this talk about the rail corridor and Gardiner being barriers to the waterfront and as such, reasons why people in this city don't head down there, I'd like to suggest a third barrier, which is the central waterfront itself. Perhaps people don't go down to the waterfront, because of the conception that a. there is nothing to do and b. its ugly. With great strides being made (Slips, the further naturalization of Tommy Thompson) and being planned (Queen's Quay, Sherbourne Park, etc.) it will be interesting to see how it all plays out and whether we will still be discussing what the true barrier is - rail or Gardiner - or whether will be actually on the waterfront (sipping on a fine beverage on one of the many outdoor cafes lining Queens Quay, [crosses fingers]) when its all said and done.

I completely agree - but also really do think that we're starting to see positive change. HtO was the best thing to happen to the central waterfront in quite some time, and while it's certainly not a large enough project to transform the area, hopefully it is a sign of better things to come. I was encouraged to see the new park being heavily used last summer on nice days -- not just by tourists walking around for 30 minutes while their bus idled on Queen's Quay, but also, it seemed to me, by people simply lounging in the sun and enoying being close to the water.

 

[Archivist]

Perhaps people don't go down to the waterfront ... . I don't understand this either. Go down in summer sometime, you can't move down there, it's so thick with people. As with waterfronts just about everywhere in the world, a large proportion of those are tourists.