[TJ O'Pootertoot]

But sure, keep assuming I want an elitist experience that cuts everyone else off from their precious small piece of lakefront property when in fact, exactly the opposite is true. I happen to think the park over the building is going to be an amazing asset for the public, with great views for free, the other redesigned outdoor free spaces will also be lovely, and the paid part is cheaper than any other similar experience yet actually better!

I wasn't assuming anything about elitism, merely the treating of the lake as an "asset" which will largely be reduced to a view in this scenario. That said, I'm happy to agree to disagree as I don't think the renovated public spaces will be much of an improvement, particularly in the shadow of the Therme building. But hey, it's possible.

We are far more in agreement than you seem to think, you just appear to have a very clear vision of what a spa should look like that is not at all how spas need to be.

It's not about what a spa could or should be. It's about whether this use (particularly in this building) is best located at this site. So it's a bit relevant that this is actually quite different from how Therme usually does things. You may think that's what makes it cool, and that's fine. To me, it comes down to Ontario Place being maximized - which could mean a lot of things - and that this doesn't cut it, IMHO.

. I do not care what other locations of Therme do, nor do I intend to get a massage while looking out at the lake (is that even possible?).

I mean, I hope so?

I would like an up front & close view/engagement with the lake while sitting in hot water similar to the hot springs I enjoyed while I lived in Japan. What you have described is effectively Go Spa, which I explicitly stated moving Therme off the water would be like. I do not want a hermetically sealed experience, I do want that feeling of interaction, and it's my contention that this design will offer that.

So, fine, we disagree on what the outcome is likely to be. But whether it's Japan or Banff you're comparing to, what is being done is recreating an ersatz version of that. There will be palm trees inside, for example;it's a Disney version of a natural hot spring, with a slice of Great Wolf Lodge added for the kids.

I don't doubt it will be pleasant and quite probably a facility I would enjoy visiting, all things being equal, but I see a design that undermines rather than enhances interaction with the lake. That's subjective, of course, and also hypothetical in that it's not yet built. But I think if you really look at what is being gained and lost, the cons outweigh the pros.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

This spa business seems more about a premium self-indulgence than a public experience…to which I am not sure is suited for this area, IMO.

 

[picard102]

All recreation facilities are premium self-indulgence then.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

All recreation facilities are premium self-indulgence then.

Er…framing it that way, sure…but that has little to do with what I said though.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

All recreation facilities are premium self-indulgence then.

General Canada and Admiral Picard do enjoy liking each other, don't they, folks?

For a guy who's big on subjectivity, this seems rather declarative to me. Anyway, this is supposed to be a family attraction and so, like perhaps Canada's Wonderland, I think it's more fair to say it a premium family indulgence than merely for ones self. Certainly all spas are (by definition) indulgences. And yes, so too is going to Wonderland or Great Wolf Lodge or African Lion Safari or Disneyland, for that matter.

But that's not what you said. So, is going to my local, fitness centre an indulgence,? What about the playground around the corner? What about the local soccer field or swimming pool? What about the volleyball courts down at Ashbridge's Bay or the family ice time at the local ice rink? I think not. These are all, I think we can agree, recreational facilities. Some have admission fees and some are free (or at least tax funded). The same could be said of golf courses, which range from municipal facilities to private clubs.

So, are "all recreational facilities premium indulgences"?

Very obviously not.
Nice attempt at a syllogism, though.

 

[picard102]

Er…framing it that way, sure…but that has little to do with what I said though.

So you weren't framing this as being "premium self-indulgence"?

 

[generalcanada]

heres another reminder, it's not a spa, it's a waterpark with some premium features like massages for those who want it.

the blue jays have premium box seats. That does not mean it's exclusively for the rich, or that the rogers center is a place for self-indulgence.
I do take issue with that discussion, while Therme's PR is terrible, their failure to correct this sentiment really is just shooting themselves in the foot

tangent: those box seats are truely self-indulgence you get a fully catered buffet, unlimited drinks and a personal server. Got gifted a visit once

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

It is what it is, so suck it up?

 

[generalcanada]

It is what it is, so suck it up?

weird response

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

weird response

How is it a weird response? I am stating something for what it is…and it’s clear you guys are uncomfortable with the term of premium self-indulgence I am using. Perhaps it challenges the narrative that this arrangement between the province and Therme that this is a sound and a good deal for us taxpayers you guys keep pushing here, and without any real convincing and compelling evidence. But I am digressing…

…so the response is unlikely weird here. It’s probably more that you don’t like it. /shrug

 

[generalcanada]

How is it a weird response? I am stating something for what it is…and it’s clear you guys are uncomfortable with the term of premium self-indulgence I am using. Perhaps it challenges the narrative that this arrangement between the province and Therme that this is a sound and a good deal for us taxpayers you guys keep pushing here, and without any real convincing and compelling evidence. But I am digressing…

…so the response is unlikely weird here. It’s probably more that you don’t like it. /shrug

but this isn't what you originally said.

youre like "deal with it"

This response is better.

which ill just say didnt respond to my comment at all?

wanna try again?

 

[picard102]

How is it a weird response? I am stating something for what it is…and it’s clear you guys are uncomfortable with the term of premium self-indulgence I am using. Perhaps it challenges the narrative that this arrangement between the province and Therme that this is a sound and a good deal for us taxpayers you guys keep pushing here, and without any real convincing and compelling evidence. But I am digressing…

…so the response is unlikely weird here. It’s probably more that you don’t like it. /shrug

The only thing it challenges is reality. A water park is only a premium self-indulgence if every other paid entry park or attraction is also a premium self-indulgence.

 

[generalcanada]

https://archive.ph/6Z1c9

this globe and mail article argues that we need more waterfront attractions. That ontario place redevelopment is a good idea, but we need something more. something like sydneys opera house. a big tourist destination. Alternatively a museum could be an idea, but id be skeptical

Yes, there is Harbourfront, the arts hub, nearing its 50th anniversary, which was the pioneer of waterfront redevelopment. Yes, there is Mr. Cormier’s Sugar Beach, with its pink umbrellas and white sand. But Toronto lacks a singular waterfront destination like Sydney’s Opera House, Chicago’s Navy Pier or London’s Tate Modern, a must-visit draw for both tourists and locals. That is why the plan to redevelop Ontario Place is so welcome. But even that big project, which is outside the central waterfront, over by Exhibition Place, doesn’t do the trick.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

You guys are surprisingly bad at this. Far too bad to actually be paid by Therme, is the good news.

I mean the base assumption is that Ontario Place is a waterpark that people from across ontario visited right? I know because I was one of them.
That cant be denied can it?

Yes it it can. It wasn't a waterpark. It HAD a small waterpark in a small portion of a far larger park which, I suppose, one could call a "theme park" or an "amusement park," though it would be erroneous to compare it to something like Wild Water Kingdom, Wonderland or Disneyland.
So, consider it denied. I don't know most of the people here but I'm willing to make at least an equally broad assertion that pretty much eveyrone here will also deny it. Feel free to poll the question (I understand that without a poll, it proves people don't care, or something?)


And here we are moving goalposts...

All recreation facilities are premium self-indulgence then.

The only thing it challenges is reality. A water park is only a premium self-indulgence if every other paid entry park or attraction is also a premium self-indulgence.

Clearly the first statement is absurd, since.a soccer field isn't a premium indulgence, though you're clearly hung up on establishing this term as something concrete.

Everything you pay to do that is not a necessity is, by definition, an indulgence. The modifiers are SELF and PREMIUM.
Going by yourself to sit in the 500 level of a Jays game is a self-indulgence. Taking your family isn't, because it's not just yourself.
Sitting in the In the Action Seats is a premium experience. Depending on one's income level, obviously sitting even in normal 100 level seats might be premium.

That said, I don't think anyone would have described Ontario Place -in any area when it was functioning- as a "premium self-indulgence." Unlike something like Wonderland, it was clearly targeted as a place for everyone though it is fair to say it struggled to achieve that in its later years.

If I go to my local community centre or even a private fitness centre, I have to pay to use it but I don't think anyone would describe it as "premium" (or indulgent, though obviously there are some fitness centres that cater to high-end customers). Therme is trying to spin that is similarly providing some "wellness facility," like it's basically just a really nice gym or communiuty pool and so (particularly with all their external "improvements") they are continuing that same spirit of inclusiveness that has defined Ontario Place since 1971.

"Premium self-indulgence" isn't my term and I don't really care but I think the clear implication is that many of us (pretty much everyone except the 3 of you who keep liking each other's posts, really) don't buy that messaging at all. It's not an inclusive "wellness centre." It's Wild Water Kingdom or Great Wolf Lodge or, sure, Wonderland or Disneyland. Those places are all fine to visit but here, we expect something better and less "exclusive." and we expect Therme not to be disingenuous about what they're building.

Unless you're going to build housing on the site, a water park is better than nothing.

Exactly. As before. Some of us demand better and that's really what this all comes down to, over and over again.

 

[Northern Light]

All recreation facilities are premium self-indulgence then.

I think that would depend on the price point.

The degree to which an attraction is broadly accessible; and draws relatively wide usage across a wide demographic range.

Toronto's outdoor swimming pools are free to access; as are more than 40 of the City's recreation centres.

Even those charging fees typically have a relatively accessible price point.

This would probably be among the most comparable public facilities (indoor wave pool in Richmond Hill)

The Wave Pool

Information about The Wave Pool in Richmond Hill including location, phone numbers and features of the facility.

www.richmondhill.ca

The adult entry price is $11.75, 15 and under is $7.05

A good deal cheaper than what Therme is looking at charging.