Does anyone recall what the author's critique of the mall in the previous design was based on? In the article above he states a failure in 'urbanism'. The fact that the latest proposal scraps the long mall and simply includes at-grade retail like any other proposal strikes me as underwhelming and a missed opportunity for such a large project.
 
I disagree. At-grade retail is a much better option than the original concept. Finer grained- and, in a sense, more of a historic urban feel. Cozier, less coldly overbearing.

Mind you, the original, much larger rail deck park was way cooler and forward-thinking. Alas, no one wanted to pay for it. This new plan remains a compromise I think we can live with.
 
ML555 said:
Does anyone recall what the author's critique of the mall in the previous design was based on? In the article above he states a failure in 'urbanism'. The fact that the latest proposal scraps the long mall and simply includes at-grade retail like any other proposal strikes me as underwhelming and a missed opportunity for such a large project.
Click to expand...
Large, off street malls are disliked by architects, planners, urbanists, landlords and real estate people alike - they leave blank facades on buildings as commercial activity goes inside, loss of street life & vibrancy, and reduces the number of people who will walk/cycle/transit/drive past a particular retail unit. Terrible urbanism, basically.

Additionally, the amount of multi level construction over the rail corridor for parking etc massively increased the overall cost of the project.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
The TWBTA proposal for the WT Central waterfront competition sort of envisioned that:

ON20060245P004E1PDMB017080940657.jpg

Toronto Central Waterfront Design Competition / Concours de design pour le front de mer central de Toronto, Tod Williams Billie Tsien / Martinez Lapena - Torres , Canadian Competitions Catalogue / Catalogue des Concours Canadiens

Toronto Central Waterfront Design Competition / Concours de design pour le front de mer central de Toronto, Tod Williams Billie Tsien / Martinez Lapena - Torres , Moteur de recherche sur les concours d'architecture au Canada depuis 1945. Search engine on architectural competitions in Canada...
www.ccc.umontreal.ca www.ccc.umontreal.ca

They of course didn't win the competition...

AoD
Click to expand...
That is unfortunate this is the design they should have gone with, would have been spectacular.
 
Pretty soon they'll be filling up the Inner Harbour with little boutique islands for the rich to live close to work and the entertainment lol! GOODBYE INNER HARBOUR HELLO MIAMI BEACH OF THE NORTH LOL !
 
I mean if Toronto wants to add more park space to the inner city, more filling of the harbour is likely the cheapest way (other than maybe building a bridge to the Islands).
 
turini2 said:
looks up Toronto Island Airport lease expiry date ... 2033
huh, that's actually not far away
Click to expand...

See this post...............by me; The City and the Airport's owner are talking

Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport | ?m | ?s | Ports Toronto | Arup

The issue is probably the ramp needed to get the buses down and up the tunnel. It would have been easier just to keep it for pedestrians and connect buses and pathways at either end if and when the day comes. Even if the airport isn't closed I would imagine there is a way to extend it by about...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
turini2 said:
looks up Toronto Island Airport lease expiry date ... 2033
huh, that's actually not far away
Click to expand...
Personally, I feel like the downtown airport offers more value than an extension to the already vast amount of park space available on the islands. It is one of the things I consistently hear tourists from the US talk about as a unique benefit of Toronto.
 
urbanexplorer said:
Personally, I feel like the downtown airport offers more value than an extension to the already vast amount of park space available on the islands. It is one of the things I consistently hear tourists from the US talk about as a unique benefit of Toronto.
Click to expand...

By passenger volume, Billy Bishop is not material to Toronto's tourism sector; and one can't use the 'gross' number in any event; the question is how many tourists would Toronto lose, net, if the Billy Bishop were closed?
I suspect very few. If people find it worth coming here for work, investing, family, or tourism they will still do so via Pearson.

If one wishes to argue for the airport, so be it, though we will differ; but I don't think that particular argument works, in terms of the net economic benefit.

I would add, provided the Islands were better connected to the City, and featured some ambition in the design of any net new park space, I think that asset would almost certainly be more remarkable than the airport.
 
Northern Light said:
By passenger volume, Billy Bishop is not material to Toronto's tourism sector; and one can't use the 'gross' number in any event; the question is how many tourists would Toronto lose, net, if the Billy Bishop were closed?

I suspect very few. If people find it worth coming here for work, investing, family, or tourism they will still do so via Pearson.

If one wishes to argue for the airport, so be it, though we will differ; but I don't think that particular argument works, in terms of the net economic benefit.

I would add, provided the Islands were better connected to the City, and featured some ambition in the design of any net new park space, I think that asset would almost certainly be more remarkable than the airport.
Click to expand...
If you're thinking purely from a tourism standpoint in terms of inflow of people.

But I am also talking about the convenience for people living here including me, personally. I use the islands as-is probably 12-14 weekends in the summer AND use the airport frequently to visit the US and other areas of Canada.

I actually think adding a land connection to the islands would degrade the experience and ruin some of the magic of the place. It doesn't feel like both can't continue to exist alongside each other. Change for the sake of change - meh.
 
urbanexplorer said:
If you're thinking purely from a tourism standpoint in terms of inflow of people.

But I am also talking about the convenience for people living here including me, personally. I use the islands as-is probably 12-14 weekends in the summer AND use the airport frequently to visit the US and other areas of Canada.

I actually think adding a land connection to the islands would degrade the experience and ruin some of the magic of the place. It doesn't feel like both can't continue to exist alongside each other. Change for the sake of change - meh.
Click to expand...

I'm not thinking of a new land connection, I'm thinking of the one that already exists to the airport, but that you can't use to get to the parkland.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top