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

"Ontario Place spa developer releases updated designs following public criticism"
www.cp24.com

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 www.cp24.com
 
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)


image.jpg


image.jpg

Screenshots from video
OP-1a.png

OP-1.jpg

OP-2.jpg

OP-4.jpg
 
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 :

1692712710411.png
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
UtakataNoAnnex said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
generalcanada said:
what is this? damned if you do damned if you don't?
they made changes from legit requests from people.
Click to expand...

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.

generalcanada said:
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"
Click to expand...

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.

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

This is a weird comment, it responds to nothing that was said, so far as I can discern.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
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.
Click to expand...

Legitimate consultation on a project, public or private, always means considering the 'status quo' option.
Click to expand...
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
 
generalcanada said:
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
Click to expand...

This is public land.

And yes, a 25 storey condo that in the middle of a subdivision, on a side street, that provided no parking in area with no transit, would get shot down entirely, and it should be.

Each development has some obligation to advocate for why a change from the status quo is warranted.

That does not mean NIMBYs get to force the status quo on anyone.

It means proponents don't get a free ride to build anything; and that is infinitely moreso on public land.

generalcanada said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yours is just a personal opinion, and one that is clearly in the minority on the most pro-development discussion board in the City of Toronto/GTA.

Lets not re-litigate that you got Osgoode Hall completely wrong, all over again, or misrepresent what that was about. You're very big on misrepresenting the views of others with whom you disagree.

How about you let others speak for themselves, and give their voice the respect you would like yours given?

generalcanada said:
If you cant give legitimate feedback to improve on then you cant say that the new proposal is insincere, flawed or unacceptable
Click to expand...

No matter how many times you repeat the above it will never fail to be untrue.

What you are saying is " I invented a rule on how this whole democracy thing works, which includes my shouting down all opinions with which I disagree or deem non-constructive" Simply put 'No'.
 
generalcanada said:
Litterally any nimby could use that argument.
Click to expand...
I know this is not a popular opinion in modern urbanist circles, but sometimes, NIMBYs are right.

Not always. Sometimes they get it completely, 100% wrong.

But just because one group of NIMBYs got it wrong, doesn't mean you can extrapolate that data to draw a conclusion about a completely different set of NIMBYs. Every project has its own context and issues at play. Sometimes it's right to push back against proposed construction. Sometimes it's not. New developments, like life itself, are complex and multi faceted, and there is no catch all solution that applies to every scenario.

generalcanada said:
that "it could be a park" which is just personal opinion rather than a feedback item to improve on.
Click to expand...
"This project is not suitable to the needs of the community" IS a feedback item.

I don't know why you defend this particular project so vociferously, nor do I understand why you think the fact that some planner somewhere proposed an idea, that makes the idea untouchable. If someone knocked on your door, and told you you were being evicted because your house was being demolished to build a casino, would you accept it without a question because it was an idea that was put forth? There is no need to be so obedient to private business - or indeed anyone else. They don't have you, or the community's best interests in mind.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top