It's a working factory, so it's not just heritage and history. Sure, cities change but I think it's important to remember where it all came from and why. You don't have to keep everything, but I love when old and new mix together, and when the old is incorporated and honoured. I think all new is boring and sterile.
 
Last edited:
pman said:
I understand your concern that Messrs. Byford and Pennachetti may be exceeding their job descriptions here. But if we leave transit planning to an elected council that is and will be dominated by suburban politicians, we're going to get a continuation of the sheer cluelessness that's made mobility in Toronto what it is today. At least with Byford, Pennachetti and - if she joins the discussion - Keesmaat, the adults are in the room. I'd far rather have transit discussions led by civil servants than the clowns who form the majority on City Council.
Click to expand...

TOareaFan said:
sounds very undemocratic.
Click to expand...

Staff comes up with the priorities, prepares a report for Council detailing the priorities and what they will cost, and Council either votes yes, asks for more information or suggests changes, or votes no. Seems pretty democratic to me. That way, at least all proposals start out un-politicized, which makes it less likely that they will become completely warped by the time they're voted on.

Council has made it very clear they're not capable of properly setting priorities (or sticking with the priorities they've set). Many other smaller motions are prepared by staff and then Council votes on whether or not to adopt them. Transit lines are really the same thing, just on a larger scale.
 
PinkLucy said:
It's a working factor, so it's not just heritage and history. Sure, cities change but I think it's important to remember where it all came from and why. You don't have to keep everything, but I love when old and new mix together, and when the old is incorporated and honoured. I think all new is boring and sterile.
Click to expand...

Distillery District is a great example of a former industrial area using its history & character mixed in with new condos & revitalized.
 
Coming Soon: Pedestrian and Cycling Improvements for Queens Quay East!

http://blog.waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe...TfuO3JwBNuOsTw!!/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/

QQE+-+interim+improvements.jpg


Good stuff. Can't wait to bike the full trail when it's done.
 
PinkLucy said:
It's a working factory, so it's not just heritage and history. Sure, cities change but I think it's important to remember where it all came from and why. You don't have to keep everything, but I love when old and new mix together, and when the old is incorporated and honoured. I think all new is boring and sterile.
Click to expand...

Something which opened in 1958, 13 years after WWII will never be considered "old" and "history". In a 100 or 200 years, the difference between 1958 and 1998 will be trivial. I understand there is some nostalgic sentiment but it just stands there like a sore thumb, wasting large land that can be repurposed to something far superior. As I mentioned, if we want to remember Toronto's industrial past, the LaFarge cement factory is a stone's throw away and one can appreciate all he wants.

And the plant is not "incorporated" into its surroundings. It is completely out of place, and more so when QQ east is done and all the projects are finished. Sometimes ugly is just ugly, and people don't think about anything else upon seeing it. Hypothetically using your logic, all the car dealership reminds us of Toronto's past too, might as well keep all of them.
 
A. I didn't say that the Redpath factory was incorporated. I said that I like it when things are incorporated.

B. One day, 1958 will be considered old. In 1614, for example, 1558 wasn't considered old. Now it is.

C. Your idea of superior isn't necessarily the same as everyone else's idea of superior. It's subjective.

D. What you see as ugly, other people find attractive. Again, it's subjective.

I will now stop because we are going in circles and will never agree. And I'm going to enjoy riding past Redpath on that improved trail that Waterfront Toronto is building. I might even stop at Sugar Beach to enjoy the view and watch the tankers unload.
 
ksun said:
Something which opened in 1958, 13 years after WWII will never be considered "old" and "history". In a 100 or 200 years, the difference between 1958 and 1998 will be trivial. I understand there is some nostalgic sentiment but it just stands there like a sore thumb, wasting large land that can be repurposed to something far superior. As I mentioned, if we want to remember Toronto's industrial past, the LaFarge cement factory is a stone's throw away and one can appreciate all he wants.
Click to expand...

The factory is still in operation, employing thousands of people. What do you mean it just stands there?
 
salsa said:
The factory is still in operation, employing thousands of people. What do you mean it just stands there?
Click to expand...
I like having it there, I like the smell and the sugar ships and it DOES employ local people but NOT "thousands".
 
ksun said:
It is fine to have disagreement about cities.
Click to expand...

Reasonable disagreements, yes. Your opinions are an extreme outliers, and your arguments to support them are shrill and desperate. Your urban-fetishism is an obvious affectation of some type of status you're desperate to attain, but are infuriated our local culture doesn't bestow upon you based solely on postal code.

If anything, downtowns are the 2014 low-information-person's goto neighbourhood: the most generic, the most homogeneous, and the least creative place you can find. Everyone acts, looks, and cherishes identical things. No friction, no contemplation, no challenge, just head nodding while being spoon-fed from what your supposed to think you like.

But, that's just my opinion. And it's fine to disagree with my correct assessment. :)
 
Last edited:
I'm a little nervous about WaterfrontToronto having run out of money. They've effectively gone through the $1.5 Billion in city/provincial/federal seed money. I'm not sure what John Tory's stance is on Waterfront Toronto but seeing that he's a conservative, I wouldn't put it past him to de-prioritize the waterfront revitalization. Olivia Chow would maintain course and Rob Ford would continue to cause a stink about spending any money on nice things.

Right now, there is no money for continuing the Queen's Quay redevelopment East of Bay street and West of Portland. There's also no budget for the park and wave deck on Yonge Street. I've also learned that the bridges across the slips are a higher priority than the remaining wave decks but they too have no allocated budget.

There are some signs that we shouldn't be totally pessimistic. The Waterfront LRT project which is being strongly pushed now would include pedestrian and landscaping improvements so funding for some Queens Quay redevelopment could be disguised as a transit project. Also, private development in the mostly empty east side of Queens Quay could become sources of revenue via section 37 money. Developers building condos for example could fund segments of waterfront redevelopment such as wave decks, parks, bridges and silva cell construction for trees.

However, I think it's important that all three levels of government commit further funding to finishing the job. WaterfrontToronto has demonstrated that the initial seed money has resulted in billions in private development with a high level of return on investment.
 
TOareaFan said:
No he's not....it is far from rural.
Click to expand...
How can it be rural or anything since this is land fill area started in the 1900's?

Some land fill was underway around 1850's because of the RR and ships, but the big push stated in 1900.

It was built for Industrial which has been forced out of the area or ceased to exist at all.
 
drum118 said:
How can it be rural or anything since this is land fill area started in the 1900's?

Some land fill was underway around 1850's because of the RR and ships, but the big push stated in 1900.

It was built for Industrial which has been forced out of the area or ceased to exist at all.
Click to expand...

I believe we are agreeing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top