[Skeezix]

Second: don't derail this thread with yet more of that overly simplistic Chicago-is-wonderful-we-suck-wah-wah-wah. Take it to another thread. Keep this on topic!

42

Well said.

 

[Skeezix]

Yes, I have written to Forestry again and attached the very telling photo! I still cannot believe that City staff approved cutting trees down. Crazy! Here is the email that I(and others) received:

This e-mail will outline Toronto Urban Forestry's involvement in the tree removal and replanting which occurred as a result of filming at the Waterfront Promenade.
Urban Forestry had been in discussions with the Film "Pixels" since mid- May. At that time we informed the site manager for Pixels that filming their proposed scene would require that they have plan in place to reinstate the trees back to a state very similar to what was existing, including providing a warranty for their successful establishment.

To meet this requirement, the film company hired UCC Group, the company currently engaged by Waterfront Toronto to continue the Promenade installation east from Sherbourne Common. (For more information about UCC Group: www.uccgroup.com )

UCC Group has completed the reinstallation and is responsible for follow up maintenance and warranty.
Urban Forestry has inspected the installation and the work appears correct overall, and the trees are very close in size to the trees removed.

The tree furthest from the lake is in good condition, with leaves lightly tinted likely due to being held in a nursery prior to the installation. Leaves are expected to revert to normal in the next growing season. The tree closest to the lake is visually vigorous, and less tinted than the other, however it does have some trunk damage (not immediately discernable to the eye) that would typically lead us to ask for replacement. We are working with UCC to arrange this replacement which could occur this autumn or next spring. We will be guided by the availability of an appropriate replacement.


Urban Forestry will continue to monitor this situation to ensure that restoration is satisfactory. The typical warranty period is 2 years. The warranty is released at the 2 year point following an approved installation provided that the trees are well established and in good health. (ie: the warranty period starts at the point that Urban Forestry approves the installation)

FYI, attached is the 7 August image taken on the date of the inspection noted above.

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to discuss the matter further or have any questions.

Regards,

Arthur Beauregard

This was a year ago. Any update? Did these trees survive and thrive?

 

[interchange42]

Those trees can be made out in the background of this photo from this past Sunday:

View attachment 46879

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

At least they are still alive, though not nearly as strong as the rest. Film industry or not, healthy trees should NOT be cut down to enable filming.

AoD

 

[salsa]

Actually I get it now completely... in rereading your post it occurs to me that your definition of 'waterfront' is confined by your Toronto experience of one, which is to say a narrow sliver of boardwalk wedged between water and highways/rails/condos (+ Harbourfront). What you don't get is that Chicago's waterfront is conceived of differently, it embraces a far greater and grander 'open' space from Michigan Avenue all the way to the water, in its central area at least. In other words, your notion that the Chicago waterfront starts at the exits of those cherry-picked pedestrian walkways you posted misses the whole point of how their central waterfront has been designed.

Actually, I do get that Chicago's central waterfront extends away from the water quite a bit. I was simply responding to your notion that Lakeshore Drive is far less of a barrier to the water than what we have in Toronto, especially outside of downtown. Maybe you disagree, but I think we can agree that there are plenty of issues with it. Anyways, it an interesting topic, but the mods would like to shut it down .

 

[someMidTowner]

The topic is always welcome in the Toronto vs Chicago thread: http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/17661

It isn't that anyone wants to "shut down" the conversation, it is just a matter of making sure everything is in the correct thread.

 

[freshcutgrass]

Freshcutgrass falls into the same trap by pointing to Harbourfront (as successful as it is, by anybody's measure) and then blindly insisting on the non sequitur that since there is allegedly no single venue along Chicago's waterfront that is as successful as Harbourfont it follows that Toronto's waterfront is objectively/quantifiably more successful than Chicago's as a whole.

I never made any such claim. I merely corrected another posters comparison between Harbourfront Centre and Millennium Park/Navy Pier.

For the record though, overall I would say Toronto's central waterfront district is more diverse and certainly holds more potential. This is due to the main difference in context between both city's central waterfronts. Chicago's was designed as parkland from the beginning over a century ago, and it's a case of generally maintaining/enhancing existing parkland. Whereas in Toronto, it's a case of adaptive reuse of a massive former industrial wasteland. That's a lot more difficult and certainly more expensive, but will be more rewarding in the long run. Keep in mind we have 10's of $billions of investments to go yet. Toronto's big Inner Harbour/Islands gives it an edge as well.

 

[Tewder]

For the record though, overall I would say Toronto's central waterfront district is more diverse and certainly holds more potential. This is due to the main difference in context between both city's central waterfronts. Chicago's was designed as parkland from the beginning over a century ago, and it's a case of generally maintaining/enhancing existing parkland. Whereas in Toronto, it's a case of adaptive reuse of a massive former industrial wasteland. That's a lot more difficult and certainly more expensive, but will be more rewarding in the long run. Keep in mind we have 10's of $billions of investments to go yet. Toronto's big Inner Harbour/Islands gives it an edge as well.

I can't disagree with any of those statements Fresh. I was saving this moment for your birthday but what the heck...

 

[Red October]

If only Harbour Castle/York Quay were at least on the other side of Queen's Quay...

 

[MisterF]

It's important to note that the "this" and "this" you have cited are well on its' way to become completely filled in with development, which will turn out more like this instead.

AoD

Yup, which is pretty much what I was trying to show. What some people decry as a wall of condos is actually a neighbourhood that links the downtown core to the waterfront and makes the walk to the waterfront infinitely more inviting.

OK, now I'm confused. So is Southcore now part of the central waterfront? I thought the central waterfront was south of the Gardiner Expressway from Parliament to Bathurst? We need some definate boarders on our neighbourhoods. This is just too confusing.

Sorry but I don't think of the CNE, CN Tower, Air Canada Centre, St. Lawrence Market or The Distillery, as being on the central waterfront. It certainly doesn't feel like a waterfront location. The Gardiner forms a proper boarder for the waterfront, in my opinion.

I don't think there needs to be any rigid boundary of the waterfront. The Southcore and CN Tower areas are part of the same derelict industrial lands as the area south of the Gardiner and both areas were built on lake fill. They have developed at roughly the same time and in the same way and together have linked the lakeshore to the city. Besides, Chicago's bean is farther from Lake Michigan than Maple Leaf Square is from Lake Ontario.

I think it matters how we define "attendance". For example, if I use the sidewalk going past the Aquarium am I attending the aquarium? Obviously not. But if I walk along one of the wavedecks going from, say, a condo to downtown, does that count as attendance to Harbourfront? Technically, I guess it does. I think there are different types of attendance that need to be considered when discussing the popularity of an attraction. Yorkdale Mall gets more visitors than The Louvre but it's not a superior or more successful attraction.

I think what he's trying to explain is that "Harbourfront" and "Harbourfront Centre" aren't the same thing. Harbourfront Centre is a specific attraction located on two quays within the larger neighbourhood known as Harbourfront. The 17 million visitors are for Harbourfront Centre only, not the larger Harbourfront area. So someone walking on the wavedecks or along the street don't count.

 

[Tewder]

I don't think there needs to be any rigid boundary of the waterfront. The Southcore and CN Tower areas are part of the same derelict industrial lands as the area south of the Gardiner and both areas were built on lake fill. They have developed at roughly the same time and in the same way and together have linked the lakeshore to the city. Besides, Chicago's bean is farther from Lake Michigan than Maple Leaf Square is from Lake Ontario.

It has nothing to do with distance, it's about design. We can absolutely design to connect/include the CN Tower/Roundhouse Park etc. with the waterfront, and it's been argued for before. It does need to be done though, we can't just state it's part of the waterfront and leave the connectivity in its current state. It takes planning and vision to open the area through, not close it off further with barriers:


From Queen's Quay

 

[Red October]

That Queen's Quay and Rees surface lot is terrible. Any idea why it's lasted so long?

 

[Edward Skira]

I think someone posted previously that it is city land that will eventually become a park. Waiting on money.

 

[syn]

I can't emphasize the bolded enough - now that QQ revitalization is coming to an end, you can really see how the sub par architecture of the strip really does a number on the general feel of the street.

AoD

I completely agree. When the project was being developed I recall them saying they wanted to create one of the world's great boulevards. I always felt the architecture would make that difficult, no matter how great a job they did.

 

[salsa]

I think someone posted previously that it is city land that will eventually become a park. Waiting on money.

This is one of the few times where I would prefer a development instead of a park. A building here would complete the streetwall, hide the Gardiner and bring more stores and restaurants into the area. There are already some nice parks literally just across the street. Why would someone want to hang out here next to the highway instead of HTO Park?