you are talking about 2005. Since then there are sooo many developments, thousands of people moved in... restaurants and caffees opened, .... there is no comparison with the situation 4 years ago.
 
Ripley's Entertainemnt in the one proposing this new project. It looks that they are following through with there plan with having the aquarium at the base of the CN Tower.
 
I have less issue with the idea behind this proposal than the design - as it stands right now, the project integrates badly with both the CN tower as well as its' surroundings. It's something that should go through reconsidering and redesign.

AoD
 
Brans89 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I know you're not making it up but how about you provide some real evidence instead of wikipedia blurbs and one sentence responses that don't help anyone?

First of all, In both of the following article, the city seems to want the aquarium on the CNE grounds and go as far as saying that their own study suggests it would make money in this location (To be fair, I'd like to see that report as well). Second, if David Miller ever released a press release about the aquariums, it never made the newspapers and can't be found on the internet. Third, unless we see the proposals made by Ripley's and Oceanus, we have no proof that an aquarium at Ontario Place or the CNE or on the harbourfront wouldn't work. Simply because they say they want a high traffic area doesn't mean that an alternative is significantly worse. I'm sure every business, whether it's a restaurant, dollar store, barbershop or aquarium would want to be located at the Tower or Dundas Square. It doesn't mean everyone gets to operate there.

Now, since you're too lazy to do any sort of simple research, I'll start you off. Here's an article from Nov. 15, 2005.
Aquarium plan for Ex is all washed up, city says; Developers say Exhibition Place is too far from downtown Pantalone disappointed $350 million project has tanked;

Exhibition Place has failed to land an aquarium.

The two companies who responded to a request for proposals, Ripley's Entertainment and Oceanus Holdings, found the 78-hectare lakeshore site too isolated from the rest of the city.

Australia-based Oceanus had suggested looking at the foot of Sherbourne, Jarvis or Yonge Sts. while Ripley's favoured a site at Yonge, or close to Union Station and the CN Tower.

"They thought somewhere on the central waterfront where there's more I guess traffic," said Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone, chair of the Exhibition Place board.

"They basically disqualified themselves by saying, 'Yes, we're interested in an aquarium in Toronto but not at Exhibition Place.'"

The request for proposals, issued in July, was limited to a site at the southwestern corner of Exhibition Place, Pantalone said, adding he doubted aquarium proponents would be able to find a site closer to downtown.

Ripley's president Robert Masterson, while stressing a downtown site would be preferable, said he was willing to work with Exhibition Place but the competing jurisdictions of province and city got in the way.

The company, which is building an indoor waterpark in Niagara Falls, had been looking at an aquarium/waterpark project with an aquarium on the city-owned Exhibition Place and a waterpark on the adjoining Ontario Place, controlled by the provincial government.

The project could have run as high as $350 million, with the city providing parking, transit and road improvements.

"We said, 'We propose that we try and act as an intermediary between both bodies to not only develop the southern portion of the Exhibition Place land they want to develop but also do some things with private money at Ontario Place," Masterson said."But there's a jurisdictional issue between the south side of Lake Shore Blvd., which is provincial, and the north side of Lake Shore, which is city. The Lake Shore acts as a Berlin Wall, separating two sides of a great city."

Exhibition Place needs a lakeshore transit line to make it more viable, Masterson said.

While Pantalone touts the streetcar line into the north end of the site, that's far from the Ontario Place end of the park.

"Right now, Ontario Place and the southern portion of the Ex grounds are like an island separated from the rest of the city," Masterson said.

He said there would have to be a better transportation system in place that is capable of handling the traffic generated by a busy attraction.

"You need something like a people mover running every eight minutes," Masterson said.

Pantalone called the outcome "very disappointing. We were looking for a private sector partner for a win-win situation. But obviously the private sector partners don't seem to be ready to come to the table."

Ripley's is still interested in Toronto, Masterson said.

"We would build an aquarium Canada would be proud of if it were linked in some way to Union Station or within a reasonable walking distance of it," he said. "Somewhere down next to the CN Tower, anything down there like that would be a very big success."
Click to expand...

and from earlier in the year (Jan 11, 2005)
Aquarium developer sets sights on Toronto again; Ripley's says it's interested Had '97 deal with Ontario Place

They cut bait a few years ago after the plug was pulled on plans to build an aquarium at Ontario Place, but officials at Ripley's Entertainment say they're still interested in such a venture in Toronto.

The facility will have to be top-notch, in the right location and with all its ducks in a row including good public transit to make sure people can get to it easily, company president Robert Masterson said.

"We are interested in Toronto and want to investigate the (proposed) site," Masterson confirmed yesterday.

But it's a project that must be done right, he said, because if not, "it's a pit into which you can throw a lot of money."

It costs more than $30,000 a day to run an aquarium that's open to the public and $28,000 a day to maintain if the facility is closed, he noted. "You're responsible for the lives of the creatures and making sure they're cared for properly," said Masterson.

"It's very expensive."

Toronto is fishing for a partner to build an aquarium that would be a city landmark along the waterfront. Developers have until Feb. 25 to say if they're interested in coming up with bright ideas for the facility, which could rise up on the 4.63 hectares of city- owned land at the foot of Dufferin St., between Ontario Place and the Exhibition.

About 50 companies including Ripley's, which is part of the Canadian-owned Jim Pattison Group out of B.C., and a British firm are being canvassed, said Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone, who is spearheading the project as chair of Exhibition Place.

Attached to the invitation will be the city's most recent study, which found that such an attraction could make money.

According to the study, the city can support an aquarium between 75,000 and 125,000 square feet, which would cost between $55 million and $97 million to build. It's estimated more than 1 million people would visit annually and that it could have an operating surplus of as much as $11 million.

"We're not just floating a balloon," said Pantalone, adding that the city would prefer the aquarium to be non-profit but "we don't have the money."

Through a public-private partnership, the city would put up the site, provide parking, transit and road improvements, and a developer would build and operate the facility, he said.

Ripley's Entertainment, which had been talking about an aquarium with Ontario Place in 1997, has already built two such attractions in the United States. The Ripley's Aquarium is an 87,000-square- foot facility in Myrtle Beach, built in 1997 for $42 million (U.S.). Ripley's Aquarium of the Smokeys was opened in 2001 in Gatlinburg, Tenn., at a cost of $50 million. Construction is under way for a $200 million hotel and Ripley's aquarium in Niagara Falls, Ont. set to open next year.

Because of its location and the population of the Golden Horseshoe alone - some 6 million people - Toronto could keep an aquarium going and profitable, Masterson said.

But Masterson figured it would cost more than $100 million to build an aquarium in Toronto, saying the scope of the operation would have to be bigger than those Ripley's operates in smaller U.S. cities.

"Toronto is Canada's biggest city and the aquarium needs to be something that will fit with the city's other world-class facilities," he added.

The Vancouver Aquarium and Marine Centre, the largest in Canada, opened in 1956 in Stanley Park. It's a non-profit operation, with all its capital being generated by contributions from public and private donors.

"Everything we earn goes back into the facility and enhancing our organization," said Marie Dickens, senior vice-president of aquarium business operations.

The aquarium, which has grown to a 120,000-square-foot facility, attracts 900,000 people a year, half of them tourists.
Click to expand...
 
This answers the question

"We would build an aquarium Canada would be proud of if it were linked in some way to Union Station or within a reasonable walking distance of it," he said. "Somewhere down next to the CN Tower, anything down there like that would be a very big success."
 
Brans89 said:
This answers the question

"We would build an aquarium Canada would be proud of if it were linked in some way to Union Station or within a reasonable walking distance of it," he said. "Somewhere down next to the CN Tower, anything down there like that would be a very big success."
Click to expand...

Your meme is dying a quick death. Better luck with the next one.
 
Irishmonk said:
Your meme is dying a quick death. Better luck with the next one.
Click to expand...

Anyone who posts yokel bumph on behalf of such a scheme such as "The Ripley's Aquariums are very popular. They are among the most attended in the US. The exhibits are Fun and Educational at the same time." probably doesn't even know what a "meme" is.
 
When you make demands on a private company they could walk away. Maximizing profits is the main thing, and if there studies say to build at CN Tower base then they are going to build it there.
Tell them they can only build on the waterfront, they will take their money and walk away.
 
What no Aquarium for the Ex/Ontario Place?! Honestly, giving that area an aquarium would turn it from a junky kidsville to having an actual chance to be a good public space. An aquarium would give something to work with.

Why don't we just build or own aquarium? I'm opposed to this for three reasons: first, I personally don't think an aquarium would fit in with the CN Tower and it's surroundings. Second, an aquarium is the thing that makes the most sense for Ontario Place. It's on the water, and would provide a transition between kinda crappy kids park to a nice place for all ages. Third, I really don't think we need more stuff downtown. It's already bursting at the seams with culture, so can't some of the love be spread around the rest of the GGH?
 
But we need a trophy building on the waterfront that will line up with our skyline. Ontario Place is a bit far away for that.

As for money, why don't the Thompsons or Westons or whoever throw a couple hundred million bucks at this thing like that Home Depot guy in Atlanta and ride into the sunset with a nice monument to their everlasting legacy. I mean, you can't take the money with you, so wtf? Hell, if I had a few billion bucks in my trouser pockets I'd fly Gehry up here in a nano-second and say "Build it. Money not an object." I just don't understand the rich cheapskates we have around here.
 
This is the very strangest thread, in some ways a distillation of the different points of view that one sees on the forum.

A few comments: When you make demands on a private company they could walk away. - where to even start addressing a comment like that. As far as I'm concerned, Ripleys could walk far and hard to the end of the earth and fall right off and I would be fine with that. And frankly, I think it's the other way around - Ripleys ought to be grateful and willing to bend over backwards to build in this city at this location. I think Toronto is past the point of being grateful for anything that any bunch of Murricans might show up and offer. The proposal as initially made is deeply flawed (even if one starts from the position that an aquarium at the base of the CN Tower is acceptable, which I think it is, it's just not interesting). The company will most assuredly have to refine their proposal substantially to meet the city's needs and that is a good thing. If they don't like it they can walk. As we know, many many aquarium proposals have gone that way, and I frankly would not be concerned if this one does, too.

we need a trophy building on the waterfront - ugh. Without wanting to be mean, the way this is phrased makes me cringe. No, I really don't think we need a trophy building on the waterfront. What Toronto is trying to accomplish on the waterfront is a livable extension of the urban fabric with mixed uses. There is absolutely no need for a "trophy" building, as it is put. Having said this, I'm not hostile to a cultural draw on the waterfront, and I'd like to see something developed.

On the whole, I think an aquarium is preferable on the waterfront. If we are to have one at the base of the CN Tower, then the building must be refined a great deal to accommodate its surroundings. If it falls through, I would have no problem with that.

On a side note, I was quite taken with the amusement rides in Osaka that reside on densely developed streets, and in my own way with the rollercoaster that sits atop the pod of the tower in Las Vegas. the London Eye is a much-copied central city amusement ride. I always thought it would be kind of cool to have some kind of urban rollercoaster down there - but I imagine it is an impractical plan (I am thinking of insurance rates here). If not a rollercoaster, then some other attraction (a ferris wheel with some twist - something unique?). That would be my own preference.
 
adma said:
Anyone who posts yokel bumph on behalf of such a scheme such as "The Ripley's Aquariums are very popular. They are among the most attended in the US. The exhibits are Fun and Educational at the same time." probably doesn't even know what a "meme" is.
Click to expand...

So what? Most people wouldn't know what a meme is. Except maybe the average wigger.
 
Irishmonk said:
But we need a trophy building on the waterfront that will line up with our skyline. Ontario Place is a bit far away for that.

As for money, why don't the Thompsons or Westons or whoever throw a couple hundred million bucks at this thing like that Home Depot guy in Atlanta and ride into the sunset with a nice monument to their everlasting legacy. I mean, you can't take the money with you, so wtf? Hell, if I had a few billion bucks in my trouser pockets I'd fly Gehry up here in a nano-second and say "Build it. Money not an object." I just don't understand the rich cheapskates we have around here.
Click to expand...

Most rich people could care less about architecture. They're too busy having fun with their destitution.
 
Archivist said:
we need a trophy building on the waterfront - ugh. Without wanting to be mean, the way this is phrased makes me cringe.
Click to expand...

I wasn't being entirely serious with that post, but allow me to retort in a more dignified manner.

By "trophy" (didn't realize slang was such a faux-pas here) I mean an iconic structure and public attraction that will reflect beautifully in the lake and embellish the city behind it. Of course we don't need it. We only need water, shelter and food. But Sydney, NYC and Chicago haven't exactly been hurt by having signature structures and/or cultural institutions located along their waterfronts. It adds to the aura and mystique of a city not to mention civic pride. And more tourists.

No, I really don't think we need a trophy building on the waterfront. What Toronto is trying to accomplish on the waterfront is a livable extension of the urban fabric with mixed uses. There is absolutely no need for a "trophy" building, as it is put.
Click to expand...

Yeah, after 3 repetitions I get it: we don't need any bling...

Having said this, I'm not hostile to a cultural draw on the waterfront, and I'd like to see something developed.
Click to expand...

Oh, but you will countenance something non-essential on the waterfront. Something classy, no doubt, that will anoint the soul while pleasing the senses and possibly even fulfill a civic need or function.

I always thought it would be kind of cool to have some kind of urban rollercoaster down there - but I imagine it is an impractical plan (I am thinking of insurance rates here). If not a rollercoaster, then some other attraction (a ferris wheel with some twist - something unique?). That would be my own preference.
Click to expand...

Hmm. Wasn't expecting that.

Well, there you have it:

"Trophy building" = cringe-worthy, unnecessary
Roller-coaster = cool, something unique

Whatever.:rolleyes:
 
Reading over these posts it occurs to me that the Ripley's Aquarium at the foot of the CN Tower is probably a "done deal" and this is very unfortunate:mad: A few years back the city invited Ripley's and others to "partner" to build an Aquarium at exhibition place. The city would provide the land for free. Since the land was going to be free Ripley's (and others) naturally requested locations which were more "prime". Now we have a very detailed proposal to build an Aquarium on crown lands at the foot of the CN Tower. I doubt that Ripley's is paying a dime for this prime piece of real estate and I doubt it will have any trouble being approved by city hall. This would be OK if the proposed Aquarium was on par with the best in the World (dare I say the dreaded term "World Class") An example of an Aquarium that is best in the World is the Aquarium of Georgia. From what I have seen of the Ripleys proposal it will be a FRACTION (about 1/4) of the size of the Atlanta Aquarium. There simply is not enough space at the foot of the CN Tower to build anything "World Class" (oops I said "W.C." again) . If as I suspect this is a "done deal" it has transpired without any public debate. A city can only support ONE Aquarium. If this goes through it looks like we are stuck with a third-rate facility forever.:mad:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top