[W. K. Lis]

Theyve been saying that for 4 years now, though a recent document showed some kind of zoo-like tram for the trek between ontario place and exhibition

They do have the "CNE Express Train", which could be repurposed between the GO and Ontario Exhibition Station and Ontario Place. That would be the accountant's choice for the bad situation to fill the "missing link".

 

[picard102]

That is a FAR too sensible idea to appeal to Mr Ford. He and his developer friends want parking because only the poor use transit and the Spa is NOT for the poor.

He and his developer friends aren't going to Therme if they are trying to avoid poor people.

 

[Natika33]

That is a FAR too sensible idea to appeal to Mr Ford. He and his developer friends want parking because only the poor use transit and the Spa is NOT for the poor.

Though I agree it's a sensible idea, Therme's business model is built on the idea of appealing to the middle class and families, not the elite. That excessively large parking lot is going to be a boondoggle for everyone.

 

[Natika33]

It's probably been proposed before, but would running the 511 or 509 streetcar along Lakeshore not help get more people closer to Ontario Place? I think it could help with the Humber Bay developments too if it kept going west.

 

[CanadianNational]

I'd love to see an Ontario Line station within Ontario Place itself. With an Ontario Line station, the province could save money by building a smaller parking garage or eliminating the parking garage idea altogether for Ontario Place.

Ontario Place's original source of inspiration, the Expo 67 grounds at Parc Jean-Drapeau in Montreal, has a station within the park, so why not Ontario Place? The idea of building a subway station is more politically palatable for the electorate, too, than a parking garage in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

I always thought a lovely loop around the Exhibition site for the streetcars would be a good idea. In addition to the current Exhibition stop, it could perhaps go by some of the attractions at the west end, stop at Ontario Place and picturesquely pause by the front of the Prince's Gates, before heading back to where it came from.

A committed linear park-walkway from Exhibition Stadium to the gates of Ontario Place would be nice. Give it some overhead shelter against inclement weather and some nifty kiosks and artworks, etc. spaced along it.

 

[cereal]

Anybody have links to the revised designs that were released today?

"Ontario Place spa developer releases updated designs following public criticism"

Ontario Place spa developer releases updated designs following public criticism

The developer set to construct a massive private spa and waterpark on the West Island of Ontario Place has released updated designs following public criticism of the company’s original plans.

www.cp24.com

 

[generalcanada]

im seeing no new documents on the development portal

 

[3Dementia]

My Take: the gist of the interview is they have "buried" a large part of the building footprint (way less glass) allowing public space/walkways through the middle in addition to expanded public access around the building, added 8 acres of 'habitats', performance space, retained the one acre beach... net result is 4 more acres of public space (16 acres total) ... which they claim is roughly equivalent to what's there now.

Below are some images and a few screenshots from the aerial video tour (all from https://www.cp24.com/news/ontario-p...-designs-following-public-criticism-1.6528809)

Screenshots from video

 

[Northern Light]

At first blush, this doesn't really resolve most of the issues people have w/this proposal.

It may mitigate some of its worst effects; but you can't support existing or future shade trees on what would amount to a roof garden.

Privately owned public space is not public parkland/asset.

I will reserve full judgement to seeing the resubmission docs.

****

Edit to add, having read the article, there is an increase in actual public parkland, in addition to the 'roof garden' space.

From the CP24 article :

 

[W. K. Lis]

They should create a new perimeter streetcar loop around Exhibition Place, whenever Ontario Place is open. Loop clockwise from Fleet Street and Strachan Avenue, behind the Princes' Gates (would be better going OVER Princes' Blvd. as an elevated structure), OVER Lake Shore Blvd. W. down to Ontario Place, then back OVER Lake Shore Blvd. W., up to Dufferin Street, and returning to the Exhibition Loop. We can avoid interfering with the Honda Indy Toronto road layout. After hours, the current Exhibition Loop configuration can be used.

Stops could be at Fleet & Strachan (for Princes' Gate or Enercare Centre access), Ontario Place, Dufferin & Princes' Blvd., the current Exhibition Loop, and Fleet & Strachan.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

This seems an admission from Therme that they know this project is problematic in the eyes of the public, thus they're making attempts to make it less problematic...even though in the end it will still be problematic. And has likely has as much sincerity in doing so as a three dollar bill, IMO.

 

[generalcanada]

This seems an admission from Therme that they know this project is problematic in the eyes of the public, thus they're making attempts to make it less problematic...even though in the end it will still be problematic. And has likely has as much sincerity in doing so as a three dollar bill, IMO.

what is this? damned if you do damned if you don't?
they made changes from legit requests from people.
Ive said it before, you cant say "no one has been consulted about this" then turnaround and say "it doesn't matter what I say, I'm not consulted until this is cancelled"

No, you were consulted with all sincerity intended. Its not on them to forcefully take legitimate feedback from those unwilling to give it.

 

[Northern Light]

what is this? damned if you do damned if you don't?
they made changes from legit requests from people.

Correct, they did. I don't believe anyone 'damned' them for doing so.

The suggestion above was Therme was admitting there was negative feedback (which there has been, in spades); and the sincerity comment I would read, as saying "They made the minimal changes they felt they had to, in order to salvage their proposal in the eyes of the public, and politically, and rather grudgingly. Further, that if they had listened to the fundamental objections of most people, their solutions, while an improvement are wholly inadequate.

As noted, I will reserve full judgement til seeing the detailed documents; but many, not just here, are fundamentally opposed to privatizing a public asset, and to wholesale decimation of hundreds of trees on the site.

Neither of those key issues is really addressed, so far as we can tell, though there is indeed an adjustment.

Ive said it before, you cant say "no one has been consulted about this" then turnaround and say "it doesn't matter what I say, I'm not consulted until this is cancelled"

Actually, you can say this. You seem to fundamentally believe there is a moral right to dispossess the public of an asset, against the will of the public, therefore if a proponent listens and changes the proverbial lipstick, we must all kowtow in gratitude.

I will have to differ.

Legitimate consultation on a project, public or private, always means considering the 'status quo' option.

No, you were consulted with all sincerity intended. Its not on them to forcefully take legitimate feedback from those unwilling to give it.

This is a weird comment, it responds to nothing that was said, so far as I can discern.

 

[hawc]

Still irreparably flawed. Public space should not be private.

 

[generalcanada]

Correct, they did. I don't believe anyone 'damned' them for doing so.

The suggestion above was the Therme was admitting there was negative feedback (which there has been, in spades); and that the sincerity comment I would read, as saying "They made the minimal changes they felt they had to, in order to salvage their proposal in the eyes of the public, and politically, and rather grudgingly. Further, that if they had listened to the fundamental objections of most people, there solutions, while an improvement are wholly inadequate.

As noted, I will reserve full judgement til seeing the detailed documents; but many, not just here, are fundamentally opposed to privatizing a public asset, and to wholesale decimation of hundreds of trees on the site.

Neither of those key issues is really addressed, so far as we can tell, though there is indeed an adjustment.



Actually, you can say this. You seem fundamentally to believe there is a moral right to dispossess the public of an asset, against the will of the public, therefore if proponent listens and changes the proverbial lipstick, we must all kowtow in gratitude.

I will have to differ.

Legitimate consultation on a project, public or private, always means considering the 'status quo' option.



This is a weird comment, it responds to nothing that was said, so far as I can discern.

Legitimate consultation on a project, public or private, always means considering the 'status quo' option.

Litterally any nimby could use that argument.
status quo of not building a 25 storey condo: no construction noise, no traffic impacts, no new people moving into the neighborhood
If "status quo" has to be always considered then we get things like this: https://vancouversun.com/opinion/co...-fight-and-defeat-childcare-facility#comments

it seems to me the only objections to the project is the trees whose numbers will more than triple under this project *cough* osgoode hall *cough*, And that "it could be a park" which is just personal opinion rather than a feedback item to improve on.

Hence what I said "No, you were consulted with all sincerity intended. Its not on them to forcefully take legitimate feedback from those unwilling to give it."

If you cant give legitimate feedback to improve on then you cant say that the new proposal is insincere, flawed or unacceptable