[junctionist]

You can complain all you want about the architecture and the size, but most people who will attend couldn't care less. Customers are in it for the displays, despite what that god-damned mythical Bilbao Effect would have you believe. If anything, this prerequisite that an aquarium must be unique to be worthwhile is a greater indicator of civil insecurity. Can't we just build an aquarium because it would be enjoyable to... you know, actually go there?

We're the people who take pride in our city and want to see that pride expressed in architecture. You couldn't be more wrong on the civil insecurity count. It's very much the opposite: we're proud of our city and our identity as Canada's metropolis and the experience we want is more than just making some money and going home everyday. Why should we be indifferent about architecture?

Moreover, it's naive to think that most people have no interest in architecture. If you polled people on opening day as to whether their experience would be enhanced with unique architecture, most would probably say yes. Some architects are more competent at configuring interiors than others, which directly affects the experience.

 

[Ramako]

We're the people who take pride in our city and want to see that pride expressed in architecture. You couldn't be more wrong on the civil insecurity count. It's very much the opposite: we're proud of our city and our identity as Canada's metropolis and the experience we want is more than just making some money and going home everyday. Why should we be indifferent about architecture?

When I said that "this prerequisite that an aquarium must be unique to be worthwhile is a greater indicator of civil insecurity" I was referring to Big Daddy's contention that, rather, building a small and architecturally ordinary aquarium is an indicator of civil insecurity.

In other words, I do not believe that wanting architectural excellence is an indicator of civil insecurity in general, but I do believe that refusing a building simply because is not "spectacular" is a greater indicator of civil insecurity than accepting something that is small but functional and enjoyable.

Every city has its icons (and we certainly do), but no city has the best of everything, and when they try, like Dubai, it reeks of insecurity. We obviously have room to grow, and I'd love it if we got a masterpiece, but at the same time I'd hate for Toronto to not get a decent aquarium simply because it wasn't iconic. I get the sense that we're constantly trying to prove a point, when in fact, I'd be more proud of the fact that we have an aquarium when most cities don't.

Moreover, it's naive to think that most people have no interest in architecture. If you polled people on opening day as to whether their experience would be enhanced with unique architecture, most would probably say yes. Some architects are more competent at configuring interiors than others, which directly affects the experience.

What do polls have to do with reality? Of course if you actively ask someone whether nice architecture would enhance the experience, they'd answer in the affirmative. But the average person isn't going to look up the building design beforehand in order to decide whether to attend. What people will remember and make them return is what's on the inside, including specimens, displays, and interior configurations. I'm not sure how anyone can judge the interiors when they haven't been released yet anyway.

 

[Automation Gallery]

I'd hate for Toronto to not get a decent aquarium simply because it wasn't iconic. I get the sense that we're constantly trying to prove a point, when in fact, I'd be more proud of the fact that we have an aquarium when most cities don't.

Right on, and well said Ramako.

 

[Brans89]

Our waterfront is a least a decade off from having the foot traffic to support an aquarium. Nobody is going to visit an aquarium in the middle of now where beside a lake. It is not going to happen.

 

[Ramako]

Our waterfront is a least a decade off from having the foot traffic to support an aquarium. Nobody is going to visit an aquarium in the middle of now where beside a lake. It is not going to happen.

Perhaps, but what do you think creates foot traffic?

 

[Brans89]

Neighbourhoods, People, Schools, Child Care services, transit, recreation centres. Our waterfront is at least of decade from having most of these things.

 

[Ramako]

Neighbourhoods, People, Schools, Child Care services, transit, recreation centres. Our waterfront is at least of decade from having most of these things.

Those things might bring more residents to the area, but I wonder if it would make the waterfront a destination for others. An aquarium certainly would.

 

[Automation Gallery]

Neighbourhoods, People, Schools, Child Care services, transit, recreation centres. Our waterfront is at least of decade from having most of these things.

If thats the case we might as well be looking at sticking the aquarium down in the heart of Kensington market.

 

[Zeiss]

Neighbourhoods, People, Schools, Child Care services, transit, recreation centres. Our waterfront is at least of decade from having most of these things.

The waterfront use to be far from civilization... but not anymore. Yes, we need more of the things you mentioned, its getting there, however I don't think that we can ever have sence of neighbourhood.

 

[jn_12]

Our waterfront is a least a decade off from having the foot traffic to support an aquarium. Nobody is going to visit an aquarium in the middle of now where beside a lake. It is not going to happen.

Have you been to the waterfront from the first nice day in the spring everyday until the fall and even on days in December when it's suddenly 10 degrees out instead of snowing? The place is packed. I live across from HtO park, and there's so many people down here that it can be annoying to walk down Queens Quay on weekends because there are so many people, especially on the south side of the road.

And don't you think people tend to gravitate to places they have a reason to visit? The saying "if you build it, they will come" is applicable. People don't avoid a great attraction because a decade ago not many people used to walk around the area.

 

[Brans89]

I have been to the waterfront in the winter and the place needs a lot of work.
Having said that this is a PRIVATE development, they are most likely the same people the ruled out the waterfront as a place for the aquarium.

It is too much to ask a cash strapped city for public funds for an aquarium on the waterfront.

 

[jn_12]

How do we know the waterfront was ruled out when we don't even know if it was considered? Seems a bit absurd to make a suggestion without anything to base it on. A private company looking to create something like this would be looking for ways to get help from the government. They'd be looking for tax breaks or land deals and considering the city and the province have two assets (the waterfront and Ontario Place) that they are looking to develop further, you'd think a partnership would be not only possible, but probable. The city might be cash strapped but how much money has been set aside for waterfront redevelopment? It's a very large amount, in addition to the city owning a considerable amount of land. There's no reason to think they couldn't have come to a deal that worked well for both sides.

I should say that I think the Tower is an okay place for another attraction. I've always been critical of the lack of supporting attractions at the base of the tower that would help create a richer experience for tourists. The problem to me is that the city and the province have two assets that they want to develop, and in both cases an aquarium would satisfy their needs, yet for some reason this is going on Bremner. Given the choice of attracting more people to Ontario Place or the harbourfront or providing visitors to the CN Tower with a side attraction, I'd rather the former and I want to know exactly why this location was picked over the other two.

 

[GrinTO]

Waterfront

Our waterfront is a least a decade off from having the foot traffic to support an aquarium. Nobody is going to visit an aquarium in the middle of now where beside a lake. It is not going to happen.

Not sure where you live but I have lived on the waterfront the past 2 years and it is very busy (weather permitting) There is always something going on. There is also a hell of a lot of people living on the waterfront. Hardly no where, the CN tower and the Dome are 2 Blocks from the Lake. Even Ontario place is an easy walk when its not freezing out.

 

[Torontovibe]

Neighbourhoods, People, Schools, Child Care services, transit, recreation centres. Our waterfront is at least of decade from having most of these things.

Our waterfront has schools and a community centre. (at Bathurst Quay) Those things bring in residents, not the tourists who are going to spend the money to keep attractions afloat. All those things you mentioned are going into Cityplace, let's see if the tourists follow. I say they won't.

You need retail, restaurants and attractions to make an area a tourist district or the area has to have a distinct personality that makes it unique. (like the distillery) The waterfront already has the huge advantage of being on the water. Now all we need to do is give people a good reason to go down there. A few quality attractions will do that. Daycare and community centres are needed for neighbourhood residents but they won't bring people to the area, an aquarium would.

 

[Brans89]

I am not making this up. The proposal is from 2005, and I can not find any information. The best find is from Wikipedia under Exhibition Place.

In July 2005, the City of Toronto asked for aquarium proposals from private enterprises. The only two respondents, Ripley's Entertainment and Oceanus Holdings, suggested that they would be interested provided the location was closer downtown, or had better transit access and parking.

They said and I remember clearly is that CN Tower base and Dundas Square were the ideal locations. Mayor David Miller even repeated those locations in a press release.