[skto]

Thanks @Northern Light

On cutting trees, Metrolinx will be doing this in Thorncliffe in 2023 on Overlea between Millwood & Thorncliffe Park Drive. Taking out the center island, all the trees & the light fixture thing on the island, the north side of Overlea and maybe south side too. You can see a preview of a small part of it at toronto.ca/millwood. Not historic, many trees though & changes feel of area for worst.

 

[Northern Light]

The Toronto left rallying to delay a public transit project in order to protect some trees on the grounds of Canada’s most elite law school is such a funny and revealing moment.

View attachment 454182

Ummm, this person is an idiot. (Toronto New Liberals)

Osgoode Hall Law School is not located here, its on the York University Keele Campus:

If one is going to try to make a point, one should perhaps fact check first.

Osgoode Hall (Queen/University) is the site of the Ontario Court of Appeals, no law school is present.

 

[MrGoose]

Ummm, this person is an idiot. (Toronto New Liberals)

Osgoode Hall Law School is not located here, its on the York University Keele Campus:

View attachment 454186

If one is going to try to make a point, one should perhaps fact check first.

Osgoode Hall (Queen/University) is the site of the Ontario Court of Appeals, no law school is present.

Pointing out that the land belongs to a different elite institution doesn’t make the base point less wrong.

To be this upset when 7 trees are being removed so that we can build infrastructure for the masses is quite revealing. Pure Nimbyism.

 

[evandyk]

Not just the Court of Appeal. The Divisional Court is there too!

As a graduate of the Osgoode Hall at York (I just say York usually to normal people), I find that this mistake is pretty common.

 

[Northern Light]

Pointing out that the land belongs to a different elite institution doesn’t make the base point less wrong.

To be this upset when 7 trees are being removed so that we can build infrastructure for the masses is quite revealing. Pure Nimbyism.

No one is arguing against a subway entrance at the corner of University and Queen.

I find the charge of Nimby'ism ridiculous.

Its fair enough to disagree that the trees are of sufficient interest to merit reconsidering the entrance location (by 10M to the west)......I would differ; but fine.

But resorting to baseless and stilted accusations does your cause no favours.

 

[NoahB]

I have an 𝒾𝒹𝑒𝒶™
How about we cancel the Osgoode OL station? There is already a subway station there. No need for duplication. The OL will connect to Line 1 about 600m east of there. Will save the 5 trees! It will also reduce potential NIMBY delays. Everyone wins!

 

[MrGoose]

No one is arguing against a subway entrance at the corner of University and Queen.

I find the charge of Nimby'ism ridiculous.

Its fair enough to disagree that the trees are of sufficient interest to merit reconsidering the entrance location (by 10M to the west)......I would differ; but fine.

But resorting to baseless and stilted accusations does your cause no

Regardless of where the entrance ultimately ends up being we will still have to dig a keyhole shaft to excavate the station cavern, extract the TBMs and mining spoils somewhere.

So are you going to move Campbell house again, Demolish the Bank of Canada building or demolish the theatre?

Keep in mind, regardless of the option you choose, some of the Osgoode fence will have to be removed so that construction vehicles can use the Osgoode lawn for staging.

 

[Northern Light]

Regardless of where the entrance ultimately ends up being we will still have to dig a keyhole shaft to excavate the station cavern, extract the TBMs and mining spoils somewhere.

So are you going to move Campbell house again, Demolish the Bank of Canada building or demolish the theatre?

I disagree w/the assumptions are you making on what is necessary, and I consider my understanding of the subject quite advanced. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don' think so, I will await evidence to the contrary.

PS, the Bank fo Canada building, much to my chagrin is getting gutted and over-topped anyway.

Keep in mind, regardless of the option you choose, some of the Osgoode fence will have to be removed so that construction vehicles can use the Osgoode lawn for staging.

Again, I disagree w/that interpretation of the facts.

 

[MrGoose]

I disagree w/the assumptions are you making on what is necessary, and I consider my understanding of the subject quite advanced. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don' think so, I will await evidence to the contrary.

PS, the Bank fo Canada building, much to my chagrin is getting gutted and over-topped anyway.



Again, I disagree w/that interpretation of the facts.

Ok then how would you stage the construction and what would you do?

 

[T3G]

I have an 𝒾𝒹𝑒𝒶™
How about we cancel the Osgoode OL station? There is already a subway station there. No need for duplication. The OL will connect to Line 1 about 600m east of there. Will save the 5 trees! It will also reduce potential NIMBY delays. Everyone wins!

I have a question: why do so many of you feel the need to misrepresent and trivialize the issue at hand instead of debating the arguments that have actually been put forth? Can we not have a discourse about this issue without strawman arguments? There's been at least a dozen posts in this thread if not more that explicitly make it clear that this is not some hippie tree hugger stuff, and plenty of alternatives have been suggested, perhaps you might go back and read them instead of debating yourself like this.

No one is suggesting anything remotely like cancelling the Osgoode station and to put this kind of argument forward cheapens your position.

 

[ARG1]

I have a question: why do so many of you feel the need to misrepresent and trivialize the issue at hand instead of debating the arguments that have actually been put forth? Can we not have a discourse about this issue without strawman arguments? There's been at least a dozen posts in this thread if not more that explicitly make it clear that this is not some hippie tree hugger stuff, and plenty of alternatives have been suggested, perhaps you might go back and read them instead of debating yourself like this.

No one is suggesting anything remotely like cancelling the Osgoode station and to put this kind of argument forward cheapens your position.

The arguments I have seen thus far is that "people who don't understand it need to shut up".

Was there a way to build the station without destroying the trees? Possibly.

Does it really matter if we need to chop down those trees? No, and unless you have proof that chopping down those trees will unleash Lovecraftian horrors that will destroy the entire city, it will be a very difficult case to make a clean argument for why bending over backwards to save a couple of trees is worth the time and money and not "trivialize the issue".

This whole scenario is pure parody, this sounds like something conjured out of a joke someone would make about rich elitest NIMBYs who don't want poor people riding on trains in their backyards, and come up with excuses like "muh trees" to delay the project. Only this is the reality that this city now lives in, and so called transit advocates are seemingly siding with them.

To put into perspective, I am usually willing to listen to opposing sides of arguments, even if I disagree with people on topics like LRTs, usually I'm willing to sit down and find an understanding. I think this is the first time on this forum I have ever been in a discussion where I can't even begin to see the merits of what people are opposing, this whole situation seems absolutely ludicrous.

 

[generalcanada]

why do people think that they know more than engineers who have spent 6 years developing this transit line?

 

[NoahB]

I have a question: why do so many of you feel the need to misrepresent and trivialize the issue at hand instead of debating the arguments that have actually been put forth? Can we not have a discourse about this issue without strawman arguments? There's been at least a dozen posts in this thread if not more that explicitly make it clear that this is not some hippie tree hugger stuff, and plenty of alternatives have been suggested, perhaps you might go back and read them instead of debating yourself like this.

No one is suggesting anything remotely like cancelling the Osgoode station and to put this kind of argument forward cheapens your position.

I had no position in that post. I simply conjured the ultimate end to people's arguments. We can shift the station North, South, East, West, Horizontally, or Vertically. In the end, the station will impact something of value to someone in the city. This is a dense center of a 230yo city and this is a 15km long project. The only possible way to eliminate that impact is to remove the station altogether. The station's omission itself will hurt future connectivity. But people are stuck on the impact on today and trivialize the payoff tomorrow.

I am ok with cutting a few trees and demolishing some stores to build a multi-dollar project that will impact the lives of hundreds of thousands every day.

So far there has been no convincing argument why the posted report by Parsons that concludes with supporting Metrolinx's initial studied design is wrong. I have only heard arguments of 'Metrolinx = lies' and 'build it in the median because I can crayon on Google Maps'.

 

[Ward8]

Does it really matter if we need to chop down those trees? No, and unless you have proof that chopping down those trees will unleash Lovecraftian horrors that will destroy the entire city, it will be a very difficult case to make a clean argument for why bending over backwards to save a couple of trees is worth the time and money and not "trivialize the issue".

This whole scenario is pure parody, this sounds like something conjured out of a joke someone would make about rich elitest NIMBYs who don't want poor people riding on trains in their backyards, and come up with excuses like "muh trees" to delay the project. Only this is the reality that this city now lives in, and so called transit advocates are seemingly siding with them.

I'm sorry, but this is in bad faith. Metrolinx has made the facts of this whole situation completely unclear. I'm reading everything I can and I have no idea what is possible and what the cost benefit analysis is. This should obviously have been public information months ago.

The trees at Osgoode hall are more important than elsewhere. There are like 4 mature trees downtown.

Obviously I'm being hyperbolic, but, yes, every adult tree in this location is actually important . If there was a reasonable level of transparency I could be easily convinced of the need to remove the trees. The Ontario Line is clearly the most important element of the discussion, but no case has been made to explain why it is necessary to cut down those trees and place a building there when it appears that an alternative is possible.

There is the independent report which I found out about today. If I, who keeps up on these things, found out about the report the day they start demolition, then it's safe to say the public has not been given sufficient information on the project. Also, as a layman the report isn't immediately clear as to why this option is the best. I'll be looking into it in more detail, but Metrolinx could easily give two sentences to the media to explain their decision.

People who think there is a natural and better alternative are not NIMBY's. They just think there is a better plan available. Thats a fair opinion given what little information we have.

It's also important to note that this is also a PR disaster for rapid transit expansion. Major changes to the public realm are always going to cause a stir, and this couldn't have been handled more poorly. This is going to throw unnecessary wrenches into future extension plans. All they have to do is explain things.

 

[MrGoose]

The trees at Osgoode hall are more important than elsewhere. There are like 4 mature trees downtown.

Obviously I'm being hyperbolic, but, yes, every adult tree in this location is actually important . If there was a reasonable level of transparency I could be easily convinced of the need to remove the trees. The Ontario Line is clearly the most important element of the discussion, but no case has been made to explain why it is necessary to cut down those trees and place a building there when it appears that an alternative is possible.