[k10ery]

That sounds like the calls from the burbs for Section 37 money to be "shared".

Whenever I criticize parts of the status quo beloved by the Left, I am compared to the Fords. It's the Godwin's Law of Urban Toronto!

 

[freshcutgrass]

A huge chunk of the "art" installations in front of every new condo look seem pretty pointless and half-assed. The money would go so much further if it was pooled and allocated across fewer, but far more significant and worthwhile projects.

This is the kind of remark you hear from people who generally don't know, or care about "art" in the first place. First of all, developers can allocate the funds to an off-site installation...if they want. And what exactly makes you think City Hall is going to do a better job at it? They can't maintain the public realm as it is. They leave public art to rust and get covered in weeds and graffiti. 99% of all great public art comes via the private sector....let's leave it that way.

 

[egotrippin]

This is the kind of remark you hear from people who generally don't know, or care about "art" in the first place. First of all, developers can allocate the funds to an off-site installation...if they want. And what exactly makes you think City Hall is going to do a better job at it? They can't maintain the public realm as it is. They leave public art to rust and get covered in weeds and graffiti. 99% of all great public art comes via the private sector....let's leave it that way.

Good art should be engaging and interesting to everyone, not just those with fine art degrees in their little circles talking about how us plebes "don't get it". A lot of what's getting slapped up in front of every new development is neither engaging or all that interesting to be honest.

 

[Torontovibe]

Wow. Look at all that green!!!

It's probably too much green. Go north of the Art Institute and the park is well used but go south of the huge fountain and it's pretty empty, except along Michigan Avenue, where the other (very cool) fountain is.

You have to have the right amount of parkland. Once the parkland becomes too big, there is just not enough people to justify it. You need to animate or program the park or it just sits empty. What is the point of building parkland if few people are using it? If it's a nature preserve, like the Leslie Street Spit, then yeah, I see the point but if it's for people, it has to be justified by the demand. In some places both Toronto and Chicago have too much parkland. Our whole ravine system is mostly undeveloped parkland that mostly sits unused.

 

[freshcutgrass]

You think Power Plant is a top attraction? Do you have any attendance figures to back that up?

Oh I see. By your logic, McDonalds must serve the best food then. ha ha

Is there any other attraction at Harbourfront that you also consider a top attraction?

Yes there is. But I'm sure you have no interest in them.

We have completely different standards/criteria for what a great (world class) attraction is.

This is the only accurate statement you have made.

Harbourfront has no major attractions, it has a number of nice small attractions (temporary exhibit spaces) and small performing arts spaces but nothing that is a destination attraction on its own.

And yet.... it still manages to draw 17 million visitors. Don't hurt yourself wrapping your head around that one.

 

[88drums]

This is the kind of remark you hear from people who generally don't know, or care about "art" in the first place. First of all, developers can allocate the funds to an off-site installation...if they want. And what exactly makes you think City Hall is going to do a better job at it? They can't maintain the public realm as it is. They leave public art to rust and get covered in weeds and graffiti. 99% of all great public art comes via the private sector....let's leave it that way.

But really, how often do developers choose to allocate funds off-site? (I'm sincerely asking.)

Doesn't minimal municipal oversight + self-interest in locating public art in the immediate vicinity of one's development = little incentive for developers to pool funds for art external to their own projects?

 

[freshcutgrass]

Doesn't minimal municipal oversight + self-interest in locating public art in the immediate vicinity of one's development = little incentive for developers to pool funds for art external to their own projects?

I would tend to agree. But why would that be a bad thing? It may be the most/only interesting thing about the property from the perspective of the passerby.

I just happen to like the concept of a wider spread collection of smaller, multidisciplinary, on-site public art. I've actually made a point of looking at a lot of it, and contrary to what people have been saying here, there's some good stuff and it definitely has improved the public realm IMHO.

As my Harbourfront argument has pointed out, you don't always need one big thing to be the most successful.

 

[MisterF]

From a design perspective, June Callwood Park is beautiful. From a practical usage perspective, it's a fail.

I find a lot of new parks and public spaces fail because the designer was going for some deep meaningful statement loaded with symbolism....and then forgot basic fundamentals of public space design. People generally are more attracted to more traditionally designed parks than ones with an abstract design. The same goes for architecture. There are exceptions of course, like Sugar Beach.

In addition to the Harbourfront Centre, we also have the CN Tower, ACC, Skydome, Ripleys Aquarium, and Roundhouse Park all within a stone's throw of Queens Quay (Literally). The CN Tower is closer to the lake than Cloud Gate (The Bean) is to the lake in Chicago.

The Toronto Islands are also a massive tourist destination, and the ferry docks are right at the Central Waterfront. (Not to mention the Islands themselves ARE part of the waterfront.

I know some people are turned off by tourist districts like this, but I don't see any problem with them. They're a very small part of the city and like it or not, they're often what leaves the strongest impression. I get the feeling that the same people who would tell tourists to go see a real neighbourhood are the same people who'd complain when they actually show up.

It's probably too much green. Go north of the Art Institute and the park is well used but go south of the huge fountain and it's pretty empty, except along Michigan Avenue, where the other (very cool) fountain is.

You have to have the right amount of parkland. Once the parkland becomes too big, there is just not enough people to justify it. You need to animate or program the park or it just sits empty. What is the point of building parkland if few people are using it? If it's a nature preserve, like the Leslie Street Spit, then yeah, I see the point but if it's for people, it has to be justified by the demand. In some places both Toronto and Chicago have too much parkland. Our whole ravine system is mostly undeveloped parkland that mostly sits unused.

To be fair, the ravines aren't really parks. They're just flood prone valleys that can't be developed and have been preserved for nature and limited recreation. They're also one of Toronto's hidden gems.

 

[WislaHD]

And yet.... it still manages to draw 17 million visitors. Don't hurt yourself wrapping your head around that one.

I think this is part of the issue. We Torontonians do not view Toronto as a big tourist city, but we actually do get a lot of tourists.

Which IMO exacerbates the point TorontoVibe is trying to make about providing tourist attractions.


My personal feeling on the subject is that our waterfront is pretty good and only getting better. That world-class tourist attraction where tourists and Torontonians alike can come and spend the day in, that place is Ontario Place.

 

[44 North]

I think this is part of the issue. We Torontonians do not view Toronto as a big tourist city, but we actually do get a lot of tourists.

Which IMO exacerbates the point TorontoVibe is trying to make about providing tourist attractions.


My personal feeling on the subject is that our waterfront is pretty good and only getting better. That world-class tourist attraction where tourists and Torontonians alike can come and spend the day in, that place is Ontario Place.

I forget what the Prov has planned for the revamped Ontario Place, but I recall being underwhelmed. I think it's important to have a straight-up family-friendly amusment park in the Old City. We've already got small parks scattered across the watefront that while great, are not something to spend all day at. Nor are they places where kids can roam free with little supervision. If there was a way to make Ontario Place bigger, better, more accessible by transit, and open year-round, I'd be 100% for it. It's a bit shameful how the Prov let the park deteriorate the way it did.

 

[WislaHD]

Re-align WWLRT along Lakeshore, a station can serve Ontario Place, BMO Field and the Exhibition grounds at once. There is your transit access.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Power plant is great, but it's true it gets very little traffic, even when the promenade is busy. It's a mystery to me. It's free, people!

The Power Plant is a cutting edge, niche facility that by it's very nature, isn't going to appeal to a vast audience. But it's highly influential and the leading facility of its kind in the country. Many of the 4000 events that take place at this facility fall into the same category. That way there ends up being something for everybody and the quality stays high.

Everything Torontovibe was saying was a contradiction. He says Harbourfront has no major attractions (attendance numbers being his definition of what constitutes "major"), yet it attracts 17 million visitors annually, making it one of the top attractions in the entire country. He criticizes a non-collecting, contemporary art exhibition facility for not having a permanent collection?????????? he he And it has to be third rate cause he hasn't seen it on YouTube. ha ha

Hate to break it to ya, but If it looks, smells and acts like Ford Nation...then it probably is.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I forget what the Prov has planned for the revamped Ontario Place, but I recall being underwhelmed.

That's because there is no plan. Someone thought putting John Tory in charge was a good idea. That someone was wrong.

We've already got small parks scattered across the watefront that while great, are not something to spend all day at. Nor are they places where kids can roam free with little supervision. .

Hello....right next to Ontario Place, is the Toronto Islands. Fits the bill. It's an island...with no cars....child-friendly.

Oh yea....one thing Toronto's downtown waterfront has that you won't find in most downtowns...a place you can legally run around bare negged.

 

[urbandreamer]

Cameras and shooting video are frowned upon &/or strictly prohibited in the art gallery world. The PP is hardcore about this issue. I also believe art tourists are more discrete &/or sophisticated than your average Ford Nation chav.

Judging by YouTube, the only thing going on in NYC is Times Square, the Wall Street Bull & the Statue of Liberty. YAWN.

What the Waterfront needs is better architecture--Pier 27 is a good start.

 

[Torontovibe]

The Power Plant is a cutting edge, niche facility that by it's very nature, isn't going to appeal to a vast audience. But it's highly influential and the leading facility of its kind in the country. Many of the 4000 events that take place at this facility fall into the same category. That way there ends up being something for everybody and the quality stays high.

Everything Torontovibe was saying was a contradiction. He says Harbourfront has no major attractions (attendance numbers being his definition of what constitutes "major"), yet it attracts 17 million visitors annually, making it one of the top attractions in the entire country. He criticizes a non-collecting, contemporary art exhibition facility for not having a permanent collection?????????? he he And it has to be third rate cause he hasn't seen it on YouTube. ha ha

Hate to break it to ya, but If it looks, smells and acts like Ford Nation...then it probably is.

I did go to Fordfest and made a video of the event......so.....check!

Yep, you've got me pegged. I have to give you an award. The way you are able to take a person's words, completely change the context and try to change them around to mean something else, is worthy of some type of recognition. The whole point of my original comments were basically that I would have preferred mixed zoning that included some fun/educational/cultural/tourist friendly attractions on the waterfront. I accept that few on here seem to want that. It boggles my mind that Torontonians want a waterfront mainly for condos but if that's the case, you all will be quite happy and I will just find a way to deal with it. Maybe cuddling with my Rob Ford bobble head doll will help me ease my pain. Or who knows, maybe some smart developer will come along and realize that some tourist friendly attractions and maybe a hotel, would work on Toronto's waterfront. Until them, maybe I'll just keep complaining. Hey, I was born in Toronto, it's what we do here.

I'm not gonna argue over nothing. I like Harbourfront and I bet I go to more events there than you do. I'm walking around there all the time. I like the place, so you don't have to sell it to me. Harbourfront probably has over 1000 events during the year, so it's no surprise it gets a lot of people. You obviously don't read my comments because if you did, I said collectively, with all the venues and events, Harbourfront is a great attraction but if you took friends there today, it might be a bit underwhelming. If you don't have tickets to a show or event, much of the time, it's quiet. It's not a major tourist attraction 7 days a week, 12 months of the year, like the aquarium is. And no, there are no 5 star tourist attractions in Harbourfront (or anywhere on our central waterfront) Ontario Place is not in the central waterfront but still, I wouldn't call it a 5 star attraction anyway but it has the potential to be. The architecture and design are fantastic!

There is no point debating this further because we both know I'm right and my Rob Ford bobble head doll needs cuddles. Long live the nayshun!