[Tewder]

Oh I get how spectacular they can be (I recently toured the Shedd in Chicago)... but unless we're going to do something SPECTACULAR why bother?

Does the world need another aquarium? Is there nothing different or more original that we could come up with for the base of the CN Tower? Can't we raise the bar... just once?

I couldn't agree more, with both your points. The Ripley's concept is just sad in every way.

My question to those who claim this aquarium isn't big/good enough is: are you in support of, and confident in getting the taxpayers to injection several hundred million to build something at the level of Georgia Aquarium. Furthermore, are you prepared to personally support raising the taxes in order to so?

No but I would support the public funding of something unique and innovative as suggested by Casaguy, something that could potentially be a tourist draw for people outside of Toronto. Don't ask me what that would be but isn't there enough creative talent and imagination in this city to conceive of something for the foot of the tower that would be more compelling than a cheesy second-rate fish tank?? In the meantime turn the space into a nice park and lets fund an AGO Modern for the silo site?

I have said before, and I have said it again - on just what planning basis are you going to get the city to reject this proposal, especially considering the fact that this is a private sector project?

AoD

Who owns the land at the base of the tower? Isn't there any process of approval for the type of land use or development that can be there? Can anybody plan anything and build it there??

 

[old boy]

My question to those who claim this aquarium isn't big/good enough is: are you in support of, and confident in getting the taxpayers to injection several hundred million to build something at the level of Georgia Aquarium. Furthermore, are you prepared to personally support raising the taxes in order to so?

I have said before, and I have said it again - on just what planning basis are you going to get the city to reject this proposal, especially considering the fact that this is a private sector project?

AoD

Isn't this an opportunity to raise the bar, as others have suggested. Let the city promote the private sector project, with the proviso that it be architecturely progressive. If we look up the street we glimpse the stunning backside of the AGO with the iconic OCAD box to the east. Right beside the CN Tower looms the monstrous fortification softened somewhat by funny statuary flanking the ramparts. If this isn't enough, to the south, the vista of the lake opens up, together with the promenade to the east all the way to the ACC and the spanking new towers. This is a precinct of some remarkable exuberance. Go state of the art with the aquarium , or don't go at all. That'd be real entertainment, folks.

 

[Torontovibe]

"Mine's the biggest! Mine's the best!"

I really hate these dick measuring contests. They tell you absolutely nothing about anything. All the people who say that something's only worth being built if it's the "#1 in the whole wide world!", must really not appreciate many things in their lives. It almost makes me feel sorry of those people

I also find it odd that the people who say Toronto "deserves" the most, also are the first to jump at a moment to take shots at the city.

Where did you see anybody on here say that Toronto had to have "the BIGGEST and the best in the world"? There is a big difference in saying we need something of high quality, as opposed to the best in the world. Of course, the best in the world would be great but most people would be happy with a top quality aquarium, that is not just for children but a well respected aquarium that is interesting, and educational at the same time.

On a site like this, of course, people are going to be very concerned with architecture and how the building addresses the street. I think if you care about this city, architecture and context, it's normal for people to have concernes. I mean, come on, we are talking about Ripley's! Check out a Ripley's museum in Niagara falls, then check out the web sites to their 2 aquariums and you tell me if people don't have the right to be concerned. I don't see high quality attractions.

Is there something wrong with taking a little pride in your city and wanting the best for it? Toronto has way too many people who just exploite it for the all mighty dollar, it's nice to see people on here who actually care about this city, without having an alterior motive, like a chamber of commerce or a real estate developer who will claim to be a city booster, yet put up the most god aweful building just to get higher profits.

Sorry but I will not stop wanting and supporting quality developments that help build a great city. We are on our way, it's too late to change our direction now. It's just too bad more people don't share the vision, or we would have gotten there a lot sooner.

 

[Torontovibe]

My question to those who claim this aquarium isn't big/good enough is: are you in support of, and confident in getting the taxpayers to injection several hundred million to build something at the level of Georgia Aquarium. Furthermore, are you prepared to personally support raising the taxes in order to so?

I have said before, and I have said it again - on just what planning basis are you going to get the city to reject this proposal, especially considering the fact that this is a private sector project?

AoD

YES!

Of course, you need to use tax payer's money to support our city. If we didn't use tax payer's dollars we wouldn't have a ROM, AGO, Skydome, Ontario Place, CNE, Centre Island, Dundas Square, Science Centre, Metro Zoo or all the other hundreds of projects that required tax dollars. If that's the kind of city you want, you might as well move to Timmins. You don't build a great city without spending lots of tax payer's dollars. It's the same with every great city around the world.

And yes, I'd gladly pay a bit more for a serious aquarium on the waterfront, along with an "iconic" gallery for modern art. (I'd donate money too) Throw in a new subway line downtown and I'll really be happy!

 

[jn_12]

Have any of you been to a Ripley's Aquarium?
I haven't, so I'm not about to judge them by some google pictures and a website. But if you have been to one then please share your pictures and experiences.

What, in your views, is the difference between an amazing aquarium and what Ripley's might propose? What is your criteria? Some of you seem to be aquarium experts so I'd really like to hear some of the finer points that differentiate the great aquariums of the world from what Ripley's can provide.

Finally, why would Ripley's other projects (for example, the museum in Niagara Falls) be direct representations of what we would receive? Does every hotel brand provide the same quality throughout their hotels? Does every restaurant chain provide the same service? Not in my experience.

I'm not defending Ripley's, but I'm not about to write them off without knowing what we're getting. I see no reason to assume they would view Toronto as another backwater town, and I'd imagine they view Toronto as a means of showing the world the potential their aquariums can have in other major cities. So I'm willing to wait and see before I jump to conclusions.

In the meantime we have the ability to at least address the outside of the building through the planning process. I'm sure Adam Vaughn and the public will demand quality fro this building, so things can still change if you're unhappy with the original renderings.

 

[urbanboom]

Where did you see anybody on here say that Toronto had to have "the BIGGEST and the best in the world"? There is a big difference in saying we need something of high quality, as opposed to the best in the world. Of course, the best in the world would be great but most people would be happy with a top quality aquarium, that is not just for children but a well respected aquarium that is interesting, and educational at the same time.

On a site like this, of course, people are going to be very concerned with architecture and how the building addresses the street. I think if you care about this city, architecture and context, it's normal for people to have concernes. I mean, come on, we are talking about Ripley's! Check out a Ripley's museum in Niagara falls, then check out the web sites to their 2 aquariums and you tell me if people don't have the right to be concerned. I don't see high quality attractions.

Is there something wrong with taking a little pride in your city and wanting the best for it? Toronto has way too many people who just exploite it for the all mighty dollar, it's nice to see people on here who actually care about this city, without having an alterior motive, like a chamber of commerce or a real estate developer who will claim to be a city booster, yet put up the most god aweful building just to get higher profits.

Sorry but I will not stop wanting and supporting quality developments that help build a great city. We are on our way, it's too late to change our direction now. It's just too bad more people don't share the vision, or we would have gotten there a lot sooner.

No, that's not what I meant at all. I'm just tired of useless complaining in our city. "The ROM's not as big as the Louvre ". BOO-FREAKING-HOO.

There is absolutely nothing wrong about wanting good things for the city. But the fact that somebody wants to build an aquarium and some people want them not to because "it's not good enough" is a really sorry excuse. I mean, it was a lot better than the aquarium Toronto already had. I mean, God forbid they build something that people will actually want to visit... or dare I say it...profitable, other than something that the biology majors at U of T will visit every six months.

Companies aren't charities. Of course they're be alterior motives if you want the private sector to fork out the money that our governments don't have. It's awfully naive to think that they're going to do this to benefit Toronto and only that. Ripley's must know how to run something that people want to see, otherwise it wouldn't be profitable and they'd stop doing it!

People here see two pictures and damn the thing to hell, just like that! What about the jobs that would be denied? What about the entertainment of your average person? Personally, when I go to an aquarium or a zoo, I do so to have a good time, not to write a thesis.

And what makes anyone say that the aquarium "won't be good enough?". We don't know. I remember a few post ago you said that "the fifth largest city in North America deserves something accordingly." Suprise! This will be the fifth largest aquarium in North America! Funny how that works out.

 

[TOareaFan]

I'm not sure where this hatred for the Ripley's franchise is coming from.

It comes from exageration by extrapolation. example...I have been to Ripley's in Niagara Falls....it is tacky (ignoring the fact that the whole point of the strip on the Falls is tacky...so to compete you have to be tacky)....since the one Ripley's property I know is tacky then all of them must be.

Like others, my only experience with this company is their Niagara Falls location. Unlike others, I will not comment on their business (past/present/future) based on that one limited experience....particulary as that experience is absolutely appropriate for the location it is in.

 

[Ramako]

With respect to location, I think the base of the CN Tower is a great one for an aquarium. Having tourist attractions close to one another creates a multiplier effect.

I'm a big fan of aquariums, but most people I know are only casually interested. What I mean is that few people actually go out of their way to visit an aquarium, be it Shedd or whatever. If we put one by the waterfront, it will certainly bring traffic there, but my thinking is that if we put it next to the CN Tower, which already receives a lot of tourists, the aquarium will get a large spill over of customers that it wouldn't otherwise at a different location. It could also get spillover from people visiting the Convention Centre, or the ACC, or SkyDome. Likewise, those who might not be particularly inclined to visit the CN Tower may be more likely to do so after visiting the aquarium. I imagine that this will also be great for the hotel business in the area, like the planned Fairmont project.

There's an argument for spreading the the entertainment and cultural venues around the city, but I prefer intensifying one area and then spreading versus leaving them to fend for their own in locations that might not support them economically.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I actually went out of my way to visit the aquarium in Monterrey. It's a fantastic facility and what makes it especially good is that it is site specific and focused specifically on California and pacific ocean aquatic life.

Now I'm all for the spectacle of show-stopping exhibits and I'm perfectly comfortable with the concept of info-tainment. I think however that it would be a shame to not have at least one wing of any aquarium dedicated to local and Canadian regional aquatic life. Something like a fresh water and salt water wing. If this facility can't do so than maybe one should be considered for a location like the zoo that would focus more on research and eductation. People could go see the sharks at this facility and to the zoo to see Canadian specific aquatic life.

 

[Peepers]

My question to those who claim this aquarium isn't big/good enough is: are you in support of, and confident in getting the taxpayers to injection several hundred million to build something at the level of Georgia Aquarium. Furthermore, are you prepared to personally support raising the taxes in order to so?

I think if done properly there would be no need to increase taxes since the local and provincial governments should see a fairly quick return on their investment by way of increased tourism dollars. The Shedd Aquarium in Chicago is the number one tourist attraction in that city. Imagine the tourist dollars that it brings in? It is too bad that we are throwing away 1.4 Billion dollars on a one-time only third-rate sporting event like the Pan Am games. Had this money been spent on building the biggest and best Aquarium in the World we could have really boosted tourism year round.

I have said before, and I have said it again - on just what planning basis are you going to get the city to reject this proposal, especially considering the fact that this is a private sector project?

AoD

There is no planning basis on which to reject this proposal however if the city were to make it clear to Ripley s that the city intends to build a world-class aquarium on the scale of the Georgia Aquarium I think that Ripley s would be quickly scared off from making this kind of investment. As noted in one of the above articles the proposed Aquarium will be a "minnow" compared to the biggest and best. Even if it is the 5th. largest in NA I don't think that this is good enough for us.

 

[TOareaFan]

The Shedd Aquarium in Chicago is the number one tourist attraction in that city. Imagine the tourist dollars that it brings in?

Source please? A quick google search I couldn't find an figures newer than 2005 but in that year the Shedd reported attendance of 1,887,879. (roughly tied with the second zoo in Chicago (Brookfield) ).

Attractions in Chicago that outdrew the Shedd were:

Navy Pier..............8.6 million
Lincoln Park Zoo.....3 million
Millenium Park.........2.5 million
6 Flags America......2.8 million

That is me leaving out the Cubs/Whitesox/and Chicago Trolley Co. from this list because I, personally, do not see them in the same category..

http://www.chicagotraveler.com/chicagos-largest-attractions.htm



I visit Chicago a lot (cause I like the place).......have never heard any "buzz" about the Shedd and have never had a concierge/friend/cabbie ask me if I have been there yet (I have not) nor have I overheard it being recommended to someone else (you know, while waiting to talk to the concierge you hear what he recommends to other people).

I am sure it is a fine place, and you may have a more up to date source but I can't see it being the number one attraction in chicago.

 

[Peepers]

Source please? A quick google search I couldn't find an figures newer than 2005 but in that year the Shedd reported attendance of 1,887,879. (roughly tied with the second zoo in Chicago (Brookfield) ).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shedd_Aquarium

"The aquarium has 2 million annual visitors; it was the most visited aquarium in the U.S. in 2005, and in 2007, it surpassed the Field Museum as the most popular cultural attraction in Chicago.[4]"

I probably should have said "cultural attraction" instead of "tourist" either way it is huge money maker for Chicago

 

[TOareaFan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shedd_Aquarium

"The aquarium has 2 million annual visitors; it was the most visited aquarium in the U.S. in 2005, and in 2007, it surpassed the Field Museum as the most popular cultural attraction in Chicago.[4]"

I probably should have said "cultural attraction" instead of "tourist" either way it is huge money maker for Chicago

ok your earlier post called it Chicago's most popular tourist attraction.....now we are limiting it to cultural attractions....very big difference.

Thanks for clearing that up

 

[vz64]

DCN provided some detail of the project including a couple of images,
http://www.dailycommercialnews.com/article/id37054. It doesn't look bad, but Ripley's name looks out of place:


Ripley Entertainment plans aquarium at base of CN Tower

Retail-commercial complex still at conceptual design stage

PATRICIA WILLIAMS

staff writer

Ripley Entertainment, which owns aquariums in both South Carolina and Tennessee, along with Canada Lands Company have submitted a proposal to the City of Toronto to construct a massive facility at the base of the CN Tower.

“It’s a three-year project,†said Gordon McIvor, vice-president of strategic acquisitions at Canada Lands, the Crown corporation which owns the tower and the land on which the aquarium would be built.

Details have not been released. But McIvor said plans call for a 150,000-square-foot aquarium and 50,000-square-foot retail and entertainment complex. Conceptual design has been completed by Toronto’s B+H Architects.

Canada Lands has inked a tentative, long-term land-lease agreement with Ripley, McIvor said. That will become a legal document once due diligence has been completed by both parties.

“We’re expecting that to happen within the next couple of months.â€

McIvor said the aquarium would be the largest in Canada and one of the major such facilities in North America.

“This is looking very, very promising,†he said.

While there has been talk in the past of locating an aquarium in the city, McIvor said those schemes “never really seemed to go anywhere.

“I think the reason this is being treated a lot more seriously by city councilors and politicians is that it is quite obvious that both sides have put a lot of time and effort into this and that this is a serious proposal.â€

McIvor said the aquarium, if approved, would be the first major new tourism attraction built in Toronto in close to two decades. It would be located at the base “of the most successful tourism facility†in the country

Cost estimates have not been released.

The Ripley/Canada Lands’ application is scheduled to be discussed at a committee meeting at city hall this week.

 

[js97]

Toronto Aquarium

Does anyone else think this is a really poorly thought through idea?

Toronto is not a coastal city, how does an aquarium increase tourist attraction?

and let's be honest, taxpayers will be footing the bill for this... in a big way.
Anyone that's ever had a salt water aquarium knows the costs associated with. And i'm just speaking about a small tank in the living room.

But my environmental side is the one that's really opposed to it.

The amount of energy this tank will require to, heat in the winter time, light (it will use LOTS of energy for special lighting), and cool in teh summer time because of all the extra heat created from the lighting...

and let's not go into the amount of water, chemicals, salt this thing will be dumping into lake ontario.

hopefully people will see the light... and write Adam Vaughan?

I'm all for new investments into the core... but this is a bad idea. We're not a coastal city, we don't need something silly like that...

perhaps an outdoor concert hall... like millenium park in chicago? a little less maintenance..