mcornett

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 20, 2007
Messages
385
Reaction score
1,348
I never went to Ontario Place as a kid so please forgive me - but was it always all publicly accessible? I thought they had just opened the grounds temporarily after it closed. I could have sworn it was originally gated and you had to pay to enter. Even the current scheme seems to offer unimpeded public access to all waterfront areas, which is a large improvement over the original configuration.

a couple of trees, whoop-dee-doo. The whole thing is sitting on a gigantic artificial island. It's not exactly an exemplar of the natural environment.

I mean what do you do if not this again? You can't just leave it as a park, you have to restore its entertainment function. Building a theme park more closely aligned to the original function is sort of pointless as that's why it closed in the first place, Wonderland pulled demand away.

Again, the indoor waterpark is something fairly creative that is missing from the Toronto entertainment market today, that can build on the waterfront location thematically, and offers a significant new entertainment venue. What else should it be?
Correct, you had to pay to enter.

From the Wikipedia entry:

The Ontario Place theme park operated annually during the summer months from 1971 until 2011. Designed originally to promote the Province of Ontario through exhibits and entertainment,[1] its focus changed over time to be that of a theme park for families with a water park, a children's play area, and amusement rides. Exhibits in the pods were discontinued and the pods became a venue for private events. The Forum concert stage had long been a primary draw to Ontario Place in its early years as it offered free concerts by a wide variety of prominent artists, for free with the price of admission to the park.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,899
Reaction score
12,567
City:
Toronto
Correct, you had to pay to enter.

From the Wikipedia entry:

The Ontario Place theme park operated annually during the summer months from 1971 until 2011. Designed originally to promote the Province of Ontario through exhibits and entertainment,[1] its focus changed over time to be that of a theme park for families with a water park, a children's play area, and amusement rides. Exhibits in the pods were discontinued and the pods became a venue for private events. The Forum concert stage had long been a primary draw to Ontario Place in its early years as it offered free concerts by a wide variety of prominent artists, for free with the price of admission to the park.
Thanks. Old satellite images confirm that all accesses were gated.

I get some here seem to want it to be a park, but I just think that's a massive waste of land. The area is relatively isolated and very, very large. A park would likely be lighlty used given the lack of local population, and would do nothing to add to the city's entertainment options which was the original intent of Ontario Place.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
14,874
Reaction score
28,920
.a couple of trees, whoop-dee-doo. The whole thing is sitting on a gigantic artificial island. It's not exactly an exemplar of the natural environment.

Your flippant attitude towards the environment is consistent w/your pro-highway and pro-sprawl views.
It's not a couple of trees. It is, quite literally, with no exaggeration well over 250 mature trees, you can compare the renders and footprints and then look at the aerial photos.
Accuracy is a thing to which you do not adhere as often as you ought.

I mean what do you do if not this again? You can't just leave it as a park

You could, actually, but it would not be my suggestion to do that with the entire site.

, you have to restore its entertainment function.

While I support the space including an entertainment function I disagreed with the characterization 'have to'.

Building a theme park more closely aligned to the original function is sort of pointless as that's why it closed in the first place, Wonderland pulled demand away.

The outdoor theme park was a central feature of Ontario Place; an indoor theme park never was........
Wonderland pulled demand away because it was something Ontario Place never could be; because the CNE got no investment in its permanent rides either, and because said permanent rides (ie. The Flyer etc.) were closed all year except during the 3-week CNE.

Let Wonderland be Wonderland.
Let people who want to spent time at indoor-amusement parks leave Toronto and go to places that appreciate tacky, like, Edmonton or something.

Again, the indoor waterpark is something fairly creative

Great Wolf Lodge on steroids is not creative.

that is missing from the Toronto entertainment market today,

So is an 800-store mall and a 2-storey indoor driving range..............somehow I don't feel the loss.

What else should it be?

The list of potential options is un-ending.

Many here, myself included liked the idea of moving the Ontario Science Centre down to to the Pods and possibly adding on to the complex for that purpose as well.
Much better location that it has today.
While we're relocating things...........Toronto Botanical Garden could shift here, for all the effort put into plans at the existing site, its very constrained. A mixture of 'natural' areas and formal gardens could occupy a large portion of the site.
A full-sized beach makes enormous sense.
So does optimizing passive recreation (paddle boats, row boats, canoes, kayaks, wind-surfing, picnics, walking and cycling space etc.
There's certainly room to retain a concert space, maybe even 2.
I have no objection whatever to restaurants and nightclubs occupying those zones at OP that were intended for same, updated for today's market.
If we were to see any 'theme park' functions, I'd rather go after the original ideas with an outdoor waterpark, simply one that was modern and up-to-date, and that could be a paid area.
A destination, adventure playground for kids works too.
There are myriad further options.
 

irishboy

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
43
Reaction score
306
Only ‘new’ news via the Globe and Mail:

“Therme is promising to set aside about 3.2 hectares – approximately a 20th of the total area of Ontario Place – for free outdoor space.”

This may not be as bad as it initially sounds. They are only getting the West Island to work with so if their trail space is 1/20 of all Ontario Place, it would be a much larger percentage of the area they are working with. When I looked at the render, it seems at least part of the trail would be going around the perimeter of the island. That would be key as it still allows people to access the outer areas at no cost. Fingers crossed this is the case!

1627670870944.png
 

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
4,478
Reaction score
2,714
City:
Toronto
Thanks. Old satellite images confirm that all accesses were gated.

I get some here seem to want it to be a park, but I just think that's a massive waste of land. The area is relatively isolated and very, very large. A park would likely be lighlty used given the lack of local population, and would do nothing to add to the city's entertainment options which was the original intent of Ontario Place.

Not to mention that given how secluded the area is. One can only imagine was seediness would take place in a park that close to the lake with no supervision. I (and I imagine many others) would not go there past sunset if it was a park and only a park.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
14,874
Reaction score
28,920
Not to mention that given how secluded the area is. One can only imagine was seediness would take place in a park that close to the lake with no supervision. I (and I imagine many others) would not go there past sunset if it was a park and only a park.

Really?

Have you ever looked at @kotsy 's photos.........?

He doesn't seem to be afraid of Ontario Place after dark.

Neither am I.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
14,874
Reaction score
28,920
Easy big fella!!!

I was thinking more along the lines if all the buildings were gone.

LOL, that wasn't ferocious attack mode............ just mild exasperation.

****

I would oppose removing Cinesphere and the Pods, and of course the space needs washrooms and concessions/restos amongst other things.

But that can be in service of a very park-like setting.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
20,445
Reaction score
10,041
City:
Toronto
Could they add lockers to Ontario Place? Somewhere we can store our swimming stuff after the waterpark, and before the movie in the Cinesphere. Especially, those who did not come by car (where we store some items in the trunk).
 

bjrkz

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2019
Messages
56
Reaction score
149
I mean what do you do if not this again? You can't just leave it as a park, you have to restore its entertainment function. Building a theme park more closely aligned to the original function is sort of pointless as that's why it closed in the first place, Wonderland pulled demand away.

Again, the indoor waterpark is something fairly creative that is missing from the Toronto entertainment market today, that can build on the waterfront location thematically, and offers a significant new entertainment venue. What else should it be?

Echoing what Northern Light stated:

There’s a huge waterpark and theme park an hour north of the city. We also have Great Wolf Lodge, which is not "creative" entertainment.

Volleyball, basketball, and tennis courts, boardwalks that interact with the water, concession stands, gardens, lounging spaces, interactive art features, an outdoor theatre, a grass field - just some ideas off the top of my head that don’t require designating large portions of waterfront real estate for monetization.

I'm not completely against some sort of large entertainment space, but why are they proposing giant energy consuming greenhouse spas on the waterfront during a climate crisis in an effort to revitalize these lands?
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,899
Reaction score
12,567
City:
Toronto
Your flippant attitude towards the environment is consistent w/your pro-highway and pro-sprawl views.
Its not a couple of trees. It is, quite literally, with no exaggeration well over 250 mature trees, you can compare the renders and footprints and then look at the aerial photos.
Accuracy is a thing to which you do not adhere as often as you ought.



You could, actually, but it would not be my suggestion to do that with the entire site.



While I support the space including an entertainment function I disagreed with the characterization 'have to'.



The outdoor theme park was a central feature of Ontario Place; an indoor theme park never was........
Wonderland pulled demand away because it was something Ontario Place never could be; because the CNE got no investment in its permanent rides either, and because said permanent rides (ie. The Flyer etc.) were closed all year except during the 3-week CNE.

Let Wonderland be Wonderland.
Let people who want to spent time at indoor-amusement parks leave Toronto and go to places that appreciate tacky, like, Edmonton or something.



Great Wolf Lodge on steroids is not creative.



So is an 800-store mall and a 2-storey indoor driving range..............somehow I don't feel the loss.



The list of potential options is un-ending.

Many here, myself included liked the idea of moving the Ontario Science Centre down to to the Pods and possibly adding on to the complex for that purpose as well.
Much better location that it has today.
While we're relocating things...........Toronto Botanical Garden could shift here, for all the effort put into plans at the existing site, its very constrained. A mixture of 'natural' areas and formal gardens could occupy a large portion of the site.
A full-sized beach makes enormous sense.
So does optimizing passive recreation (paddle boats, row boats, canoes, kayaks, wind-surfing, picnics, walking and cycling space etc.
There's certainly room to retain a concert space, maybe even 2.
I have no objection whatever to restaurants and nightclubs occupying those zones at OP that were intended for same, updated for today's market.
If we were to see any 'theme park' functions, I'd rather go after the original ideas with an outdoor waterpark, simply one that was modern and up-to-date, and that could be a paid area.
A destination, adventure playground for kids works too.
There are myriad further options.

Of that list, paddle boat, canoe, and kayak rentals are happening, as is the concert space, as is the beach space. As is the adventure playground. This is a big site.

The science centre needs money but it can stay in place, shifting it here would replace an indoor waterpark, which you are complaining about because of its insular nature, with another use that barely even has windows and is very much insular. I don't see the value in moving it over giving it a new facility at its current location. Therme at least has opportunities to provide both indoor and outdoor facilities. It also isn't exactly an indoor waterpark in a traditional sense, it integrates spa elements and makes it a more mature, modern concept.

The botanical garden is an interesting concept, and I don't hate it, but I don't see how it's an inherently better concept than Therme. I also don't see it being nearly as large of a draw, and it would result in the area being very quiet for 6 months of the year.

Regarding the indoor water park idea - how is it really fundamentally different than the original Ontario Place? The whole park was built on the idea of family fun and entertainment - something a waterpark does similarly, and something which is oddly missing from the GTA.

I don't appreciate calling my attitude regarding the environment as "flippant" - but a small bush of 40 year old trees isn't worth derailing a massive project over. Sorry. I don't think saying that makes me an environmental pariah. And no, it's not some massive wooded area, it's a relatively small area on the west island that is spread around the existing park structures. Half the trees will probably be lost in the demolition work alone.
 
Last edited:

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
15,899
Reaction score
12,567
City:
Toronto
Echoing what Northern Light stated:

There’s a huge waterpark and theme park an hour north of the city. We also have Great Wolf Lodge, which is not "creative" entertainment.

Volleyball, basketball, and tennis courts, boardwalks that interact with the water, concession stands, gardens, lounging spaces, interactive art features, an outdoor theatre, a grass field - just some ideas off the top of my head that don’t require designating large portions of waterfront real estate for monetization.

I'm not completely against some sort of large entertainment space, but why are they proposing giant energy consuming greenhouse spas on the waterfront during a climate crisis in an effort to revitalize these lands?
None of those uses are going to be regional draws, and most are already in relative abundance in the area. This area isn't lacking in park space. Concession stands won't work without a larger draw. A grass field - really? That's a productive use?

That doesn't sound like a good use, it sounds like a government that has given up on the original intent of Ontario Place and just wants to be rid of it.
 

Richard White

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2015
Messages
4,478
Reaction score
2,714
City:
Toronto
Could they add lockers to Ontario Place? Somewhere we can store our swimming stuff after the waterpark, and before the movie in the Cinesphere. Especially, those who did not come by car (where we store some items in the trunk).

IIRC they had them at one point. Alot of public places are getting rid of them for security reasons.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
14,874
Reaction score
28,920
None of those uses are going to be regional draws, and most are already in relative abundance in the area. This area isn't lacking in park space. Concession stands won't work without a larger draw. A grass field - really? That's a productive use?

That doesn't sound like a good use, it sounds like a government that has given up on the original intent of Ontario Place and just wants to be rid of it.

Aside from the fact I don't agree w/your premise that these lands must be tourist-centric on a grand-scale...............
I would also add, I don't see adding a waterpark/spa which is conceptually similar to a dozen more around the world as a particularly useful feature if that was your goal.

Tell me how many times you flown to Munich to enjoy the Therme location there? Bucharest? Manchester?
Right, lets be honest, you didn't even know any of those existed.
No one in France will know that about the Toronto one either, and if they did, they aren't flying to Toronto when they have one a few hours drive away in Europe.

People don't travel large distances, in large numbers, to go to indoor water parks.

They rarely do so for any one 'attraction', even one of which I might be fond. Sure there are the Disney World's that are exceptions.........but they are just that; and this is not Disney World.

But in general people go to other cities to escape their daily lives and experience something different from home.

Sure, while there, its nice to have a wide range of things to do; and stuff for the kids.

But this is not my idea of a major selling feature.

Moreover, I'm tired of seeing what I view as grift when public assets are turned over to the private sector to operate.
 
Last edited:

TossYourJacket

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 22, 2018
Messages
634
Reaction score
1,431
why are they proposing giant energy consuming greenhouse spas on the waterfront during a climate crisis in an effort to revitalize these lands?
Because this government is doing literally everything possible to make climate change worse so they can "own the libs" :rolleyes:
 

Top