...folks will be able to save their money and come here instead of going to Ontario Place. 😸
 
Don't get why they keep showing the pedestrian bridge along with a note that it's not within the "project scope".

Who pays for it? Developers via section 37 $$?

The bridges and additional Waterfront Promenade are a separate project, grouped together.

The bridge is shown simply because it is intended to be there in the finished product; but it's being delivered so to speak, separately.
 
Wow that does look really amazing. It looks like there will be a park beside it as well from another development?
 
The bridges and additional Waterfront Promenade are a separate project, grouped together.

The bridge is shown simply because it is intended to be there in the finished product; but it's being delivered so to speak, separately.
And it would be amazing if the bridges project finally gets funding: providing a more continuous walk along the water would be a major asset giving it a wholeness, giving it literal highpoints along the way over each slip where everyone will get a better feel for the harbour as a whole by just being a little higher above it… and by taking pressure off the chokepoints at the end of each slip now, which are crazy busy on summer weekends. (The Lake Shore bike lane needs to be finished too, to get the high-speed cyclists out of the chokepoints, so that it' just more easy-going recreational cyclists on the Harbourfront section of the Martin Goodman Trail.) Anyway, all of that needs attention, and they've let it go so long now, I'm concerned the bridges will never be undertaken. It certainly feels like they may never be…

42
 
FARM committee is meeting this week and Parliament Slip is on the agenda.

A report before the Ctte seeks approval to advance to 60% design for the Lake Fill portion of the project using land revenues of WT pending full government approval of the larger project.

https://waterfrontoronto.ca/sites/d...ommittee Meeting - May 26, 2022 (FINAL)_0.pdf (p. 105)

From the above:

1653486179593.png
 
If this ever moves ahead, I suspect it will need a separate thread but.. This from WT website

  • Request for Proposals (RFP) #2023-13: School Conceptual Feasibility Study
  • Waterfront Toronto invites all qualified firms to submit a Proposal for School Conceptual Feasibility Study. There are several new schools proposed as part of the revitalization of Toronto’s Waterfront. As described in greater detail in the RFP, the Keating Channel Precinct Plan (2010) identified a school facility in the Keating Channel neighbourhood located just east of the Parliament Street Slip to serve both the Keating Channel and East Bayfront neighbourhoods. This parcel, which sits within the Quayside development area, is referred to as Quayside Block 5. The purpose of this RFP is to conduct a conceptual feasibility study for a new school facility that may be integrated with a cultural destination on Block 5 of the Quayside development. The following two scenarios will need to be explored: 1. A school integrated within a cultural destination 2. A co-located school site adjacent to a cultural destination. Full details included within the RFP document. To view this opportunity, please visit Waterfront Toronto's Bonfire Portal website at https://waterfrontoronto.bonfirehub.ca.
 
Great! Several cities now have design focused high schools. Might be a nice fit.
 
I would say so. It's more part of the Lower Don Lands project, but this thread is way less saturated for now at least. We should honestly have a new thread made specifically for the development of the parks within the new development lands.

Sidenote, I really hope we end up with more Haida art around, and I would be really happy if this ends up with piers like the one pictured on that page.
 

Let me bring forward the proponent list:

1691721828107.png



I'll be interested to see the submissions, not merely the names.........

But for now, I must observe, 'Two Row' is a consultant on 3 competing projects..........I see that as extremely problematic.

We can all agree that there is merit to having greater indigenous representation in the fields of architecture and landscape architecture; and there is a need to correct for past discrimination.

But in imposing absolute requirements on participation, when there are apparently relatively few qualified firms................

I'm not sure this doesn't create a serious conflict-of-interest issue, among other problems.
 
Last edited:

Top