[MrGoose]

 

[crs1026]

The Osgoode Hall property was placed on the City's Heritage Register in 1973. Including land, gates, and trees.

In other words.... it was one of the first properties the City chose to be designated, at a time when the Heritage movement was just getting going.

That ought to suggest that, regardless of its provincial level powers, ML should have been treading very lightly. This is not one small shed on a back street. It is a very significant public place and artifact.

Nor are these just any trees. They are older than most of the city.'s built form.

There is also the question of whether the demolition of the trees is indeed necessary under the auspices of archaeology. Folks who are in the archaeology business tell me that much research might be doable without removing the trees, and in fact disturbing the soil around the roots is undesirable if there is a need to apply techniques that graph the layers of the soil.

To be a bit extreme, but just to make the point. - ML has two choices, tear down the opera hall or tear down the lawn of Osgoode Hall. The opera center was built for $181M. Which will contribute more to the character of Toronto's downtown over the next 30 years? Which will touch more people and create more experiences? Which has delivered more value to more residents of the city in the past?
No, I'm not attacking opera goers.... I have gone myself, and it's a wonderful venue. But it's replaceable and modifiable, and it's not really that interesting on the exterior, and it could be redeveloped with a tower on top. Whereas Osgoode Hall's grounds are irreplaceable.

Just saying - this isn't "just a few trees".

- Paul

 

[picard102]

So much concern here for poor downtrodden metrolinx having to adjust their plans, as if it didn't have the ability and resources to do so, and that a delay in doing so is going to materially impact the timeline of this project that all of a sudden we need done yesterday but know it won't be ready for a decade or more anyways.

 

[evandyk]

To be a bit extreme, but just to make the point. - ML has two choices, tear down the opera hall or tear down the lawn of Osgoode Hall. The opera center was built for $181M. Which will contribute more to the character of Toronto's downtown over the next 30 years? Which will touch more people and create more experiences? Which has delivered more value to more residents of the city in the past?
No, I'm not attacking opera goers.... I have gone myself, and it's a wonderful venue. But it's replaceable and modifiable, and it's not really that interesting on the exterior, and it could be redeveloped with a tower on top. Whereas Osgoode Hall's grounds are irreplaceable.

The answer to all of those questions is the opera hall. I've been there many times, and I've been inside Osgoode Hall many times (to argue in court, but I also worked inside it for a year and my name is on a wall inside, along with a few hundred other people) but if the city isn't willing to give up space on University, the only natural place for the subway entrance is the Osgoode lawn.

I still think there's plenty of space in the University roadway, and the fact that it's been down to zero lanes for the last two weeks with very little negative impact suggests that it could go down to 2, 3 or 4 lanes very easily on a permanent basis.

 

[TossYourJacket]

Build a small, non intrusive sidewalk entrance like they already have for Osgoode station on University Avenue.

Or build a slightly larger entrance on the south side of Queen, where there is more space. There is always a solution.

The proposed entrance is far, far too big for downtown and wholly unnecessary.

View attachment 453986

The reason the proposed entrance is that big is to fit the modern accessibility standard of redundant elevators (something the TTC overall does very poorly at present). Presumably this entrance will also provide access to both the Line 1 concourse and the new OL concourse, which is a pretty big deal. A walk-down entrance isn't exactly friendly to people with mobility-related disabilities, which is why the TTC has been steadily replacing as many of them as possible with entrances integrated into buildings (many of which have been equipped with elevators to improve accessibility). People with disabilities have just as much right to conveniently use the subway system as anyone else.

Regardless of wherever they build the entrance, (i personally would like to see it in moved into University Ave, but who knows what happens) it will need to be the size shown in the renders due to this reason. And I would hardly say that accommodating people with disabilities is "unnecessary".

 

[T3G]

The reason the proposed entrance is that big is to fit the modern accessibility standard of redundant elevators (something the TTC overall does very poorly at present). Presumably this entrance will also provide access to both the Line 1 concourse and the new OL concourse, which is a pretty big deal. A walk-down entrance isn't exactly friendly to people with mobility-related disabilities, which is why the TTC has been steadily replacing as many of them as possible with entrances integrated into buildings (many of which have been equipped with elevators to improve accessibility). People with disabilities have just as much right to conveniently use the subway system as anyone else.

Regardless of wherever they build the entrance, (i personally would like to see it in moved into University Ave, but who knows what happens) it will need to be the size shown in the renders due to this reason. And I would hardly say that accommodating people with disabilities is "unnecessary".

That's cute! Too bad I literally never said anything about accommodating people with disabilities being unnecessary. But thanks for playing. Maybe next time you'll put forth an argument of substance, too.

 

[ARG1]

Hope they win and put a stop to this tomfoolery from Metrolinx.

I hope not. It's a bloody tree, it can also be replanted later. Maybe since I see things differently because I'm not a local and I don't have this attachment to specific trees, but even my favourite trees, I'd be fine to seeing them let go if it meant building this subway line. Like are we really going to have to go back to the drawing board to build a more expensive subway station, just so we wouldn't have to chop down a couple of trees? Are you kidding me? Get the hatchets and shovels out, and build the line already!.

 

[ARG1]

Here's a question to ponder: what kind of precedent would we be setting if we gave Metrolinx carte blanche to mess up the public realm because they didn't design the project correctly the first time around? It would essentially be saying that it doesn't matter how sloppy their work is, and it would certainly open the door for them to try pulling stuff like this for the next design project, too.

Last I checked, the transit system is supposed to serve the city, not the other way around. If that means transit projects are delayed to protect the sanctity of the public realm, well, too bad. That's the price of living in a pre-developed city.

The precedent would be a transit agency that operates similarly to how most other transit agencies operate in places like Europe. Only in NA do we have hissy fits over nonsense like trees, and this is part of the reason why our construction costs are so high. Build the subway, cut some trees if you need to, destroy some houses if necessary. I frankly do not care, nor do I have sympathy for you if you are affected.

 

[TossYourJacket]

That's cute! Too bad I literally never said anything about accommodating people with disabilities being unnecessary. But thanks for playing. Maybe next time you'll put forth an argument of substance, too.

Good grief. I explained why the building was the size it is. But I guess that's somehow not "of substance" because of your feelings? Because you don't like the answer? Whatever, I'm not putting up with your condescending nonsense and personal attacks.

 

[The REAL]

Absolutely hilarious, a multi billion dollar project that's badly needed will be blocked because of... trees? Erm yeah it sucks that trees need to be cut down but you can easily compensate the loss by planting more trees or some other method.

Just get it built, this is absolutely ridiculous.

It's absolutely ridiculous. The same NIMBY's that are complaining about their precious trees, are the same ones that are going to ride the new line when it opens lol. I find it stupid that ppl are all of a sudden caring so much about these trees when we DESPERATELY need more transit in the city. Like grow up.

 

[TossYourJacket]

The precedent would be a transit agency that operates similarly to how most other transit agencies operate in places like Europe. Only in NA do we have hissy fits over nonsense like trees, and this is part of the reason why our construction costs are so high. Build the subway, cut some trees if you need to, destroy some houses if necessary. I frankly do not care, nor do I have sympathy for you if you are affected.

People have been spoiled by the way the TTC has consulted on literally everything and rewrote plans to be way more expensive to accommodate every possible concern. While it was well intentioned, it's resulted in a city where basically no transit gets built, and what we do build is excessively expensive.

We could never build the Bloor-Danforth line today. People would be far too outraged about every aspect of it's design.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Seriously, this forum of transit advocates is now willing to NIMBY a transit line over ... five trees? Huh?

Is putting the entrance somewhere else a better option? Yes.

Is Metrolinx a piece (or pieces) of shit? Yes.

Are they the least transparent agency anyone's ever dealt with, ever? Yes.

Is it worth delaying the project over trees? No, at least, not in my opinion. If they can redesign it without delaying the project, go for it, I guess.

Shades of Save Jimmie Simpson ...

 

[T3G]

Good grief. I explained why the building was the size it is. But I guess that's somehow not "of substance" because of your feelings? Because you don't like the answer? Whatever, I'm not putting up with your condescending nonsense and personal attacks.

You suggested I did not take accessibility into account in my criticisms of the design, I'm not sure you are the one who has the right to feel slighted by "condescending nonsense" and "personal attacks".

You can install plural elevators on a sidewalk. Not a complex solution, now is it? There is no part of the accessibility equation that mandates having a large and pointless access building. Perhaps some building code that has never brushed up against common sense, but in the real world, these deliverables can be achieved without such grandiose pointlessness. For what possible reason would such a building need to exist? People pass through that for a few seconds on their way into and out of the subway!

 

[Ward8]

It's absolutely ridiculous. The same NIMBY's that are complaining about their precious trees, are the same ones that are going to ride the new line when it opens lol. I find it stupid that ppl are all of a sudden caring so much about these trees when we DESPERATELY need more transit in the city. Like grow up.

This would be true if there wasn't a better option on the table, but there is... so why not get the best of both worlds?

 

[APTA-2048]

Good grief. I explained why the building was the size it is. But I guess that's somehow not "of substance" because of your feelings? Because you don't like the answer? Whatever, I'm not putting up with your condescending nonsense and personal attacks.

Half the building in the render looks like empty space. Of course people are gonna wonder why it has to be so big.