[Northern Light]

One is on the lake, the other is across the road from the lake.

Right, but the activities are entirely within the building; so the only utility of the Lake is the view; the BLC sits well above the grade of Lakeshore, and for the OP landscaping budget, I can make Lakeshore invisible from a building sited there, so that the Lake is the view.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I kind of agree with Olivia on this. Parts of the ground level structure could be kept. Obviously it would go up quite a bit higher than the existing building, and there would be nice views in several directions from upper levels. The spa got started as part of an initiative to revive OP, but it's clear that many feel it is a case of destroying the village in order to save the village. Better to move Therme to EP and maybe proceed with some kind of more limited intervention spanning the OP parking lot and west island that is less destructive. It could even be the Science Centre, providing that the original building at the other end of the Ontario Line is restored and given a new public use. Perhaps as a mausoleum for Ford Nation and its program to rebuild Ontario.

 

[generalcanada]

I do wish you would refrain from posting on things you don't understand.

For 100% clarity no tree removal is required if the current landscape and grades are maintained.

The contamination issue occurs where you create a new foundation and where you need to re-grade.. The ground is not poisonous to walk on........

cmon man dont go there dont do personal attacks. ive read those reports. have you? it litterally says the soil is contaminated and needs to be completely replaced. sure its not "poisonous" per se, but its contaminated which is what happens to soil after 50 years of neglect. it doesnt need to be poisonous to need to be replaced

 

[picard102]

Right, but the activities are entirely within the building; so the only utility of the Lake is the view; the BLC sits well above the grade of Lakeshore, and for the OP landscaping budget, I can make Lakeshore invisible from a building cited there, so that the Lake is the view.

The utility is the proximity and the surrounding amenities planed. Many places can "view" the lake, but proximity is more valuable.

 

[Northern Light]

cmon man dont go there dont do personal attacks.

Its not a personal attack. I didn't critique you as a human being in anyway, shape or form. I critiqued that you are not known to be expert on the subject of ecology or landscape or regulations around same, and you are pontificating as if
you were.

Perhaps equally important, UT'ers know I have some knowledge about this subject, in fact a fair bit of knowledge about this subject; and I am correcting your statement to reflect the facts. That's not personal, its just science.

ive read those reports. have you?

Yes, I have.

it litterally says the soil is contaminated and needs to be completely replaced. sure its not "poisonous" per se,

No, that's not what is said, you're reading it incorrectly. I explained that already.

The need for soil replacement is a regulatory one, and it occurs when you dig............not before.

but its contaminated which is what happens to soil after 50 years of neglect.

It what? LOL It absolutely does not.

That is one of mostly completely ridiculous statements I've seen posted on UT, ever; and I've seen a few.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Many places can "view" the lake, but proximity is more valuable.

Likewise many places can “view” a subway station but proximity is more valuable.

Maybe if swimming in the lake was a more popular activity at OP then you could make a better argument for building right on the water. But it’s truly just for the view from a window in the facility, they can achieve this from the BLC’s site. If they’re building even a bit more vertically than the BLC they can also obstruct the view of the road.

 

[picard102]

Likewise many places can “view” a subway station but proximity is more valuable.

Which would be relevant if we weren't talking about a spa/waterpark, next to a massive parking lot.

Maybe if swimming in the lake was a more popular activity at OP then you could make a better argument for building right on the water.

You mean like if they built a public beach?

But it’s truly just for the view from a window in the facility

Which document was that in?

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

I mean, it maybe "contaminated" with all the goose poop one has stepped in over the last 50 years...

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Which would be relevant if we weren't talking about a spa/waterpark, next to a massive parking lot.

LOL we’ve already established that it will be designed to account for only the forecasted 10% of modal share. Sure let’s ignore the rest!

Which document was that in?

Admittedly speculative, but my point still stands.

At the BLC site, the spa could be ~500m from a major transit hub and ~500m from a public beach.

 

[picard102]

At the BLC site, the spa could be ~500m from a major transit hub and ~500m from a public beach.

and ~500m from where they want it to be in the first place.

 

[thefreak]

cmon man dont go there dont do personal attacks. ive read those reports. have you? it litterally says the soil is contaminated and needs to be completely replaced. sure its not "poisonous" per se, but its contaminated which is what happens to soil after 50 years of neglect. it doesnt need to be poisonous to need to be replaced

I'm interested to know more about this neglected soil

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

One is on the lake, the other is across the road from the lake.

Yes. A huge difference of like 100 feet.

But I mean, to state the obvious, one has a subway station in the middle of it and one requires a silly shuttle to get people from the subway to the front doors because (wait for it) it's across the road.

I'd also assume, perhaps incorrectly, the condition of the lands is generally better on the CNE site, since it's not entirely landfill.

But as lovely as those sweet lakefront views may be, the CNE access is far, far superior.

 

[picard102]

But as lovely as those sweet lakefront views may be, the CNE access is far, far superior.

And that clearly isn't a concern.
So people can make up whatever justifications to move it to the CNE they want, but it's not what the government, nor the waterpark, are interested in.

 

[thecharioteer]

the suggestion that any of the better living center food building or hell even the stanley barracks should be torn down is honestly laughable. the loss of any of those buildings equate to a total loss of the CNE as we know it

Also the fact is that the province owns OP and the city owns the CNE grounds. If the city wants to redevelop the CNE they can (and they should).
There is no reason for the province to "deal with the cne grounds" before looking at CNE

To be clear its the citys fault that the CNE is so deserted. Dont put it on the province

I also wouldn't be so quick as to throw the Better Living Centre away. Designed by Marani Morris and Allan in 1962, it won the Massey Medal for Architecture in 1964, and is one of the CNE's finest Modernist buildings.

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

And that clearly isn't a concern.
So people can make up whatever justifications to move it to the CNE they want, but it's not what the government, nor the waterpark, are interested in.

You seem to think this is an argument rather than a demonstration of a significant part of the problem

The heritage issues also clearly aren't a concern. Nor the clear cutting of trees. Nor the size or cost of the parking lot. Nor the loss of the Science Centre building or the degree to which their plan fails to accommodate its exhibits.

Just going to toss out for your consideration that maybe the fact that these things are "clearly not a concern," is the entire fricking problem that appears be a either eluding you?

Maybe, and I'm just spitballing here, some or even all of these things should be of concern to someone with some oversight of the project? Certainly they are the cocnerns of many of us here. Certainly they are the concerns of Toronto planning staff and much of council. Certainly they are concerns to thousands of people who aren't Doug Ford or IO or the faceless folks behind Therme (r you). That's the whole point you seem to consistently miss (on purpose, is my guess).

(Also, to conclude: Yes, obviously the province, which put out an RFP for developing their land isn't interested in moving their selected project to land they don't even own. Duh. That's immaterial to people pointing out objective reasons it makes more sense there than it does on the lakefront site, notwithstanding your "argument" that the waterfront land is more valuable even if it's less accessible and so obviously that's where they want the spa. To which, again, I say, duh. Who cares?.)