A better location would have been that big parking lot on Queen's Quay, just in front of the Skydome. The aquarium would have been facing the lake, filling up an ugly parking lot and hiding the ugly Gardiner, yet not so tall that it blocks Skydome. I think that would have been a much better location to develop the waterfront and city-building in general. Oh well, maybe one day that parking lot will get filled with something besides another condo. We need more FUN attractions on the central waterfront.
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
No, I'm not. Let's have some fun: Where would you put your Waterfront Aquarium? Instead of Hines' East Bayfront? That's well out of the central waterfront tourist zone. Instead of Canada Square? Then, where do you put the parking to get it off QQ? Tear down the Radisson or Pier 4?

You could go to the north side of QQ and get rid of one of the surface parking lots... but then it's not really waterfront, is it? In fact, it's about an extra 3 minute walk from where it's going to be located. HTO West, I guess, or the parking lot on the other side of the Music Garden... neither of which is any better, IMHO, than the location they chose.
Click to expand...

Ontario Place? The Portlands? Where the Canada Malting Silos are?

Are you suggesting the waterfront is so built up that there is no location for an aquarium?

Riverdale Rink Rat said:
If you have to have water for your aquarium, you really should put it out at Polson Pier or elsewhere on Cherry along the harbour, and have an iconic view of this fabulous new building that you're getting designed by an iconic architect. Call me when you cobble together the $200M without government donations, and I'll accept my consulting fee for the idea.
Click to expand...

... but just to continue with the poops and giggles here, let us just imagine for a moment that a waterfront location is unworkable so that we might then focus on all the other things that are wrong with this cheesy project, not the least of which include architecture, urban planning and the very tourist trappy concept that Ripley's is selling. Heck, I'd even give you the base of the CN Tower if we had something compelling here rather than the third rate dreck on offer!

At the end of the day, however, I suspect that those here who are obsessed by the CN Tower location understand implicity that the only chance this knock-off 'Marineland' stands is to be practically astride the city's major tourist destination, that nobody would actually travel out of their way to get to it if it wasn't.
 
Location, design etc aside, there is actually quite a strong movement away from these sorts of facilities in general, that is- zoos and aquariums with strictly an entertainment focus. Toronto might be getting a sub-par fishhouse with dancing seals in tous-tous while others like Monterrey in California and the Shedd are refocusing on education, conservation and research. Well maybe not dancing seals ;0 ...it's just when I think of Ripley's I think of dancing animals that have been prodded into unnatural behaviors and things like two headed calves. Point being, is the concept itself outdated and are we perhaps getting something that is going out of favour, if not considered somewhat ass-backwards for the 21st century? Fine if it's in a tourist outpost ghetto like Gatlinberg or Niagara Falls, but downtown Toronto...hmm
 
Im looking forward to this thing and to be honest I like the location. If we were building the worlds biggest aquarium I would be more in support of a waterfront location. However since its a medium sized aquarium its not going to draw any new people to the city. What it will do is give the tourist who are here to look at the CN tower something to do close by. And as a Torontonian, I will enjoy the quick access from UNion. Also there is nothing wrong with tourists or even tourist destinations. If you dislike either of these two things then you should hate NEW YORK as welll since its practically the tourist capital of north america.
 
Bogtrotter said:
Location, design etc aside, there is actually quite a strong movement away from these sorts of facilities in general, that is- zoos and aquariums with strictly an entertainment focus. Toronto might be getting a sub-par fishhouse with dancing seals in tous-tous while others like Monterrey in California and the Shedd are refocusing on education, conservation and research. Well maybe not dancing seals ;0 ...it's just when I think of Ripley's I think of dancing animals that have been prodded into unnatural behaviors and things like two headed calves. Point being, is the concept itself outdated and are we perhaps getting something that is going out of favour, if not considered somewhat ass-backwards for the 21st century? Fine if it's in a tourist outpost ghetto like Gatlinberg or Niagara Falls, but downtown Toronto...hmm
Click to expand...

Not sure I agree with your belief that there's been a move away from these sorts of facilities.

Grandiose public (or foundation-backed) "serious" aquariums in the style of Shedd, Monterey Bay or even Vancouver aren't exactly popping up like mushrooms. I'm far from an expert, but the only one I'm aware of that's been built in the last 20 years in North America is the Oregon Coast Aquarium. The existing "serious" aquariums are certainly making a point of reinforcing the distance between themselves and the Marinelands of the world, yes, but that's hardly a new phenomena, and that's very different from seeing new-builds.

You're right to point out that entertainment-driven fishhouses like Ripley's aren't the same, er, kettle of fish, but it's not as if Toronto was really facing a choice between one or the other. One type is self-financed by the private sector, the other tend to need public money or substantial charitable giving. Toronto was only going to see the second kind if (a) the federal and provincial politicians decided to reach out to the all important seahorse-fancier vote and lavish huge public dollars on one, potentially through Waterfront Toronto (and, no doubt, at the expense of some other public amenity improvements) or (b) David Thomson had a secret sea otter fetish.
 
Platform 27 said:
Not sure I agree with your belief that there's been a move away from these sorts of facilities.

Grandiose public (or foundation-backed) "serious" aquariums in the style of Shedd, Monterey Bay or even Vancouver aren't exactly popping up like mushrooms. I'm far from an expert, but the only one I'm aware of that's been built in the last 20 years in North America is the Oregon Coast Aquarium. The existing "serious" aquariums are certainly making a point of reinforcing the distance between themselves and the Marinelands of the world, yes, but that's hardly a new phenomena, and that's very different from seeing new-builds.

You're right to point out that entertainment-driven fishhouses like Ripley's aren't the same, er, kettle of fish, but it's not as if Toronto was really facing a choice between one or the other. One type is self-financed by the private sector, the other tend to need public money or substantial charitable giving. Toronto was only going to see the second kind if (a) the federal and provincial politicians decided to reach out to the all important seahorse-fancier vote and lavish huge public dollars on one, potentially through Waterfront Toronto (and, no doubt, at the expense of some other public amenity improvements) or (b) David Thomson had a secret sea otter fetish.
Click to expand...

Tongue in cheek commentary aside for the moment, I do agree with what you are saying, and for the record I am actually for these facilities if the animals are appropriately housed, and there is a concerted effort to educate and give back in some form in terms of conservation or research etc. My impression is that the trend in zoos and aquariums, is shifting towards education and conservation, and in the case of the more notable facilities like Monterrey and Vancouver into marine research as well. This largely has to do with public perception and issues of ethics of keeping wild animals captive as well as environmental conservation. I think the fact that not many 'serious' facilities have been built in recent years in NA speaks to this. I suppose the question remains which are we getting at the foot of the CN tower, and will it be accepted as a serious institute by the zoo community or a fishy funhouse. If the latter, then yes certainly I have reservations about it.
 
It's taking time for the message to sink in. We are in a new world. In this new world we need to avoid letting perfect become the enemy of the good.

There is no way public or philanthropic money will build an aquarium in Toronto in the lifetime of anyone on this thread. That means the public will have little to say on location, size, style, etc.

It's interesting to note that the largest aquarium in Europe is in an Istanbul mall. The largest aquarium in south-east Asia is in a ... mall.

So Toronto's aquarium is next to the CN Tower and operated by Ripley's. Welcome to reality.
 
sixrings said:
Also there is nothing wrong with tourists or even tourist destinations. If you dislike either of these two things then you should hate NEW YORK as welll since its practically the tourist capital of north america.
Click to expand...

Does the Ripley's concept contribute to the kind of overall branding and development of Toronto that would attract tourists to begin with, or is it simply a tourist trap for those already here? A well-respected, innovative waterfront aquarium that is thoughtfully conceived and designed might have been an enormous catalyst for waterfront tourism and development overall, accruing to and reinforcing a larger Toronto brand rather than simply shoring up another tourist site (The CN Tower). This is the missed opportunity.
 
Bogtrotter said:
Dam straight! ...wait...what?
Click to expand...

I believe he meant that the world is not black and white in that if something has some real value but is not "perfect" that we shouldn't dismiss it outright as "bad" because it did not reach the level of perfection....wait, I think I just confused myself. In any case, I think I get what TO City of Light was saying despite my inability to express it in different terms. .
 
Tewder said:
Does the Ripley's concept contribute to the kind of overall branding and development of Toronto that would attract tourists to begin with, or is it simply a tourist trap for those already here? A well-respected, innovative waterfront aquarium that is thoughtfully conceived and designed might have been an enormous catalyst for waterfront tourism and development overall, accruing to and reinforcing a larger Toronto brand rather than simply shoring up another tourist site (The CN Tower). This is the missed opportunity.
Click to expand...

Saying that this is a missed opportunity implies that a "well-respected, innovative waterfront aquarium" was a realistic alternative that we turned down in favour of Ripley's. In reality, the only alternative to this was getting no aquarium at all because there is simply no one around willing to pay for the kind of aquarium that you're talking about. The Georgia and Shedd Aquariums were funded by wealthy philanthropists, and sadly, such individuals are rare in Toronto.

All I can think of is those spoiled California teens who cry about getting an Acura for their 16th birthday instead of the Mercedes that they really wanted. The vast majority of major cities in the world have no aquarium, so let's enjoy the fact that we're getting one at all instead of constantly whining about how it's not going to be the best in the world. This entire thread is nothing but whining. The point has been made repeatedly and it's getting tiresome.
 
Last edited:
Bruvyman said:
I believe he meant that the world is not black and white in that if something has some real value but is not "perfect" that we shouldn't dismiss it outright as "bad" because it did not reach the level of perfection....wait, I think I just confused myself. In any case, I think I get what TO City of Light was saying despite my inability to express it in different terms. .
Click to expand...

Sounds a bit celestial, but my interpretation is we should try our best for the ideal, but accept that the world is not a perfect place and just do our best to see the good in things.

But then it kind of went on to malls and took on a love of it lump it tone.
 
Ramako said:
Saying that this is a missed opportunity implies that a "well-respected, innovative waterfront aquarium" was a realistic alternative that we turned down in favour of Ripley's. In reality, the only alternative to this was getting no aquarium at all because there is simply no one around willing to pay for the kind of aquarium that you're talking about. The Georgia and Shedd Aquariums were funded by wealthy philanthropists, and sadly, such individuals are rare in Toronto.

All I can think of is those spoiled California teens who cry about getting an Acura for their 16th birthday instead of the Mercedes they really wanted. The vast majority of major cities in the world have no aquarium, so let's enjoy the fact that we're getting one at all instead of constantly whining about it's not going to be the best one in the world. This entire thread is nothing but whining. The point is made and it's getting tiresome.
Click to expand...

Right-on Ramako, well said
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top