syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
5,330
Reaction score
3,606
I'm not sure I understand this line of reasoning. The proposed indoor theme park that makes an attempt to blend with and improve many outdoor amenities is bad, but the abandoned, entirely outdoor, and seasonal theme park that was previously in the same location at Ontario Place was good?

Having year-round space that tries to integrate with its natural setting seems infinitely better to me than space that isn't attended half the year.

I'm not sure why those would be the only two options.

No one has suggested they leave it as is - only that this plan is not an ideal use of the space, especially given what it was intended for.

The plan certainly has its merits, and I generally don't mind having an indoor theme park. This just isn't a great spot for it.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,104
Reaction score
58,588
I didn't say it would be an international tourist draw - I said a regional draw. It may not draw someone from London, England, but it certainly might from London, Ontario.

'Daytrip' tourism isn't all that profitable, if someone invests $100 at a day attraction and some gas money then goes home; from an economic benefits case point of view, I'm not sure that works out well.

I'd hasten to add, the requirement in my mind, IF we were applying this metric is would have to ask the question "Are these NET new visitors to Toronto' or are we simply shifting money from an existing business or attraction to this new one?

I'm not sold that this would generate much net new business for Toronto; I'm also not sold that that is should be lens through which the future of OP should be examined.

But I'm open on the point, were there a persuasive case. I don't see that here.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,673
Reaction score
17,682
City:
Toronto
'Daytrip' tourism isn't all that profitable, if someone invests $100 at a day attraction and some gas money then goes home; from an economic benefits case point of view, I'm not sure that works out well.

I'd hasten to add, the requirement in my mind, IF we were applying this metric is would have to ask the question "Are these NET new visitors to Toronto' or are we simply shifting money from an existing business or attraction to this new one?

I'm not sold that this would generate much net new business for Toronto; I'm also not sold that that is should be lens through which the future of OP should be examined.

But I'm open on the point, were there a persuasive case. I don't see that here.
is the original function of Ontario Place any different? And why is a regional entertainment option an inherently bad thing? And what is truly a large enough destination to draw globally? The only types of destinations that truly draw globally I can think of is the likes of Disney Land. I'm not sure why Ontario Place needs to be held to that standard.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,104
Reaction score
58,588
I also think it'll be a major draw for people and families from Toronto, Ontario who don't have the privilege to go on a tropical vacation every year.

I'll grant, as somone who can't stand the heat, and would much rather jaunt around Europe than a tropical island............I'm not un-biased in thinking this is not that attractive an idea to many.

Be that as it may; this is not going to be operated as a public service.

The Therme park near Munich is 48 Euros, per person, per day on the weekend.

So a family of 4 would be 192 Euros, not including any food, or parking, so far as I can discern. That's strictly access to the waterpark and saunas.

At $284 + tax for a family of 4, before food, gas/transit and parking, I expect this will be out of the price range of most low-income families.

Now, they do have an hourly rate so if you want to tromp down and get in and out.........it could be cheaper.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
22,596
Reaction score
12,894
City:
Toronto
If the powers-that-be do not extend the streetcar loop down to Ontario Loop, at the very least create a shady, tree-lined, pedestrian promenade walkway from the streetcar loop down to Ontario Place. When the Canadian National Exhibition is on, they can put rides, games, etc. on either side of the walkway and trees.

a-beautiful-view-along-the-brick-pedestrian-walkway-between-a-canopy-of-green-trees-on-the-avenue-du-president-hoover-in-lille-france-PGA0N4.jpg
From link.

woman-walking-and-boy-cycling-along-pedestrianised-pavement-chengdu-AXM5FY.jpg
From link.
paseo-del-prado-is-a-pedestrian-promenade-that-divides-the-center-EAPTE6.jpg
From link.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,104
Reaction score
58,588
is the original function of Ontario Place any different?

Perhaps not so much, except, it was relatively unique for its time (there was no Cinesphere (IMAX) anywhere else as an example.
It was publicly owned and operated. The price was set based on it being non-profit was broadly affordable.

Admission in 1971 was $1; and $1.50 for adults in 1972 (after OP lost significant money in its first year)
Youth were .75c

In today's money (as per the Bank of Canada Inflation Calculator that would be $10 per adult and $5 per youth)

I expect pricing will be considerably higher here, though we don't yet have all those details.
I did not the pricing of Therme's German Park near Munich above.
Ecorecreo as a group doesn't seem to operate anything exactly like what they propose here, so pricing is difficult to gauge.


And why is a regional entertainment option an inherently bad thing?

I wouldn't say that it is; I simply wouldn't consider it a given or a necessity. Its something to be considered; I don't happen to care for this particular proposal set on a number of levels.

And what is truly a large enough destination to draw globally?

I clearly identified Disney World and pointed out that this is not that (nor could it be, nor should it be)

My point wasn't that this needed to be Disney World; my point was that it could not; and that arguments being used in support of it around economics are, to my mind, tenuous; because they are arguments that
would work IF this was Disney World; but do not when it is not.

Ontario Place is not going to be a vast money maker and that should not be the aim.

Were it to be highly profitable for private business; that's a further problem in my mind, since its a public asset.

I don't want that standard applied to the Toronto Islands or High Park.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
17,673
Reaction score
17,682
City:
Toronto
I'll grant, as somone who can't stand the heat, and would much rather jaunt around Europe than a tropical island............I'm not un-biased in thinking this is not that attractive an idea to many.

Be that as it may; this is not going to be operated as a public service.

The Therme park near Munich is 48 Euros, per person, per day on the weekend.

So a family of 4 would be 192 Euros, not including any food, or parking, so far as I can discern. That's strictly access to the waterpark and saunas.

At $284 + tax for a family of 4, before food, gas/transit and parking, I expect this will be out of the price range of most low-income families.

Now, they do have an hourly rate so if you want to tromp down and get in and out.........it could be cheaper.
I saw somewhere that they are aiming for a $39 admission fee here. Even if they don't offer child discounts, that's not anything wildly different than existing water parks. Wet-n-Wild in Etobicoke charges $42 for entry right now, $32 for children under 4' in height.

$39 a person isn't exactly free but you could send your whole family here for a day for the cost of a night in a hotel. It's not exactly extravagant, even if it may be out of reach of those in very low income classifications.

I agree that such a standard shouldn't be applied to High Park or the Toronto Islands - those spaces have a different function than Ontario Place, and I'm not sure that's the model that Ontario Place needs to follow. I think what has been formulated here is a reasonable model to breath new life into Ontario Place with a presumably minimal public investment from the province that will allow the space to retain it's role as a regional entertainment draw.. I'm not sure why that's so terrible.
 

Northern Light

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
May 20, 2007
Messages
23,104
Reaction score
58,588
I saw somewhere that they are aiming for a $39 admission fee here. Even if they don't offer child discounts, that's not anything wildly different than existing water parks. Wet-n-Wild in Etobicoke charges $42 for entry right now, $32 for children under 4' in height.

$39 a person isn't exactly free but you could send your whole family here for a day for the cost of a night in a hotel. It's not exactly extravagant, even if it may be out of reach of those in very low income classifications.

I haven't seen the price point info yet; do you have a link for that?

*****

Also, interestingly, Wet and Wild is also on publicly owned land that was never intended to be a private amusement park.

At least Canada's Wonderland bought their own land.

****

I need to step away; too much time on my beloved UT today. Not getting enough work done, nor getting in a nice walk on a gorgeous day.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
32,122
Reaction score
26,058
City:
Toronto
I've reflected on the plans. We definitely dodged a bullet, especially with Ford's hands all over this. The Cinesphere and pods were saved, and there will be some public (non-ticketed) space. Oh, and no casino!

My biggest concerns:
  1. The two new attractions - Therme Spa and outdoor playground - might be at a price point that is unattractive to the average family. How will they compare to Canada's Wonderland or other secondary competitors like Wet n' Wild (formerly Wild Water Kingdom)?
  2. Both attractions seem to treat Lake Ontario like an afterthought. I'd like to see more interaction with the water.
  3. The Cheapening™. I'd be stunned if Therme ends up with those panoramic glass buildings. I'm concerned we might get something looking more like a suburban rec centre
  4. As noted earlier, this is a very odd terminus for the Ontario Line, especially with all that parking.

Actually I would be more concerned about the business case if I am Therme - they seem to be in amidst an international expansion but I am not sure if they can translate the European experience directly to North America.

AoD
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
5,330
Reaction score
3,606
If the powers-that-be do not extend the streetcar loop down to Ontario Loop, at the very least create a shady, tree-lined, pedestrian promenade walkway from the streetcar loop down to Ontario Place. When the Canadian National Exhibition is on, they can put rides, games, etc. on either side of the walkway and trees.

a-beautiful-view-along-the-brick-pedestrian-walkway-between-a-canopy-of-green-trees-on-the-avenue-du-president-hoover-in-lille-france-PGA0N4.jpg
From link.

woman-walking-and-boy-cycling-along-pedestrianised-pavement-chengdu-AXM5FY.jpg
From link.
paseo-del-prado-is-a-pedestrian-promenade-that-divides-the-center-EAPTE6.jpg
From link.

Beautiful examples.

Can't help but feel like Toronto's version would have random chunks of asphalt and the trees replaced with crooked hydro poles.

Let's hope we've learned something.
 

UtakataNoAnnex

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 5, 2020
Messages
4,544
Reaction score
6,474
I personally don't mind the tropical based green house as long as do it like the one they already have at the Science Centre. Making it our own Gardens by the Bay of the North if you will. However, I'm not big on turning it into some Roman bath though.That reeks of cheeeze and for Doug Ford profits, IMO. Instead it should be community based with the entry fee included upon entering OT if need be. And enjoyed by all who want a break from the cold and the rest of the world. And not just for the well to do Karens and Chads who want to display their pecs, glutes and wealth. /My2Cents
 

Torontovibe

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
5,689
Reaction score
942
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 lightly 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.
Ontario Place already has a new park, Trillium Park, just east of the main park and it is never very crowded. In fact, it has always been empty when I went there. Ontario Place is surrounded by parks on all sides, so there is no lack of public parkland here. We don't need more empty, passive parkland. We need fun things for adults and children to do year round. We need to increase tourism and provide good paying jobs. If done properly, we can accomplish more than one objective here. Why not have a bit of everything and make Ontario Place appeal to a broad spectrum of the population. Keep parts of it free or affordable but also offer some upscale, paid attractions so it is accessible to as many people as possible. Making this park a year round attraction is important too.

Listen, I'm as cynical as the next guy and I am no fan of the Ford government but I think this might be a good start to turning around Ontario Place and we can always add to it or change things around after a change of government. Improvements can always be made, while respecting contracts. We've got to start somewhere and this plan seems decent to me but we need to keep pressure on Ford to do something with the parking lots, integrating OP with Exhibition Place and also public transit access. Those huge parking lots could provide valuable space for new attractions or some better use than parking.
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
22,596
Reaction score
12,894
City:
Toronto
Beautiful examples.

Can't help but feel like Toronto's version would have random chunks of asphalt and the trees replaced with crooked hydro poles.

Let's hope we've learned something.
With Toronto's suburban Councillors, they'll demand no benches (to keep the homeless off them).

Sculpture of Jesus the Homeless​

jesus_statue.jpg
From link.
 

Torontovibe

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
5,689
Reaction score
942
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.
There were periods where it was free too. I remember if you collected 3 milk carton tops you got in FREE! The price for admission had 2 options, admission with rides/attractions or just general grounds admission, which was low priced. Ontario Place was always very accessible. There was always some company giving away free general admission passes.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
26,376
Reaction score
32,178
City:
Toronto
Well, this took most of the day… front page story. Hopefully you'll find some new info in their, maybe not, but I've tried to put all the major points of what has been announced into one article.

I'll have some detail renderings to post in here later… after dinner sometime.

42
 

Top