I think eventually yes they will. Unless it gets cut from their budget. They have already cut out the bridges from the new QQ design as there was no budget set aside for them.
 
lead82 said:
I think eventually yes they will. Unless it gets cut from their budget. They have already cut out the bridges from the new QQ design as there was no budget set aside for them.
Click to expand...

Where did you see that they were cut? There has been no cutting of the bridges, they are still planned. Just waiting on the next wave of funding.
 
P23 said:
Can we remove the "Waterfront" from Waterfront Toronto and just have them redo the whole city please?
Click to expand...

This may or may not have been a joke, but I honestly don't see why we shouldn't replicate the WT formula across the whole city, or at least for certain strategic loci of development. Perhaps we should create various "zones" governed by the entity, which would oversee redevelopment. The current approach isn't working aesthetically, and we are gobbling up development lands that could have become much more without necessarily spending a huge amount more.
 
WT is a winning formula. I love watching the sugar ships load/unload across from Sugar Beach. The project is unique and highlights the beauty of industrial architecture.
 
I was really worried the bridges were cut! They were the reason they plan was selected as the winning plan in the first place, it would be a shame and a failure on WT's part if they didn't get built.
 
Interesting that WT are looking for someone to strengthen the dock wall. From what I remember they did work on it
during the construction of Sugar Beach.
​
Request for Proposals (RFP) #2017-62: Dockwall Reinforcing at East Side of Jarvis Slip
(02/2018)

Waterfront Toronto (legally named Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation) is seeking proposal submissions from prospective contractors for Dockwall Reinforcing at East Side of Jarvis Slip.
 
DxC4DIZUwAAPCIj.jpg


From link. The PDF from waterfrontoronto.ca at this link.
 
smably said:
The trees of sugar beach continue their impressive growth (via https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...Bayfront+Display+Boards_FINAL.pdf?MOD=AJPERES):
View attachment 190654
Click to expand...
Yes, the Sugar Beach trees have done VERY VERY well but I would not be boasting too much about those on Sherbourne Common and we had best not talk about the Queens Quay trees (many of which were, finally, replaced this year and MAY now do better.)
I see no reason why the SC ones are still so small (and some are dead) as they are, or ought to be, planted in silva cells with with lots of root space. Those on QQ have to contend with salt, traffic and a more restricted (though still with silva cells) environment so it is more understandable why they have not thrived.
 
DSC said:
Yes, the Sugar Beach trees have done VERY VERY well but I would not be boasting too much about those on Sherbourne Common and we had best not talk about the Queens Quay trees (many of which were, finally, replaced this year and MAY now do better.)
I see no reason why the SC ones are still so small (and some are dead) as they are, or ought to be, planted in silva cells with with lots of root space. Those on QQ have to contend with salt, traffic and a more restricted (though still with silva cells) environment so it is more understandable why they have not thrived.
Click to expand...
Deep Root (maker of the Silva Cell) wrote a blog post a few years back with some info about the ones at Sherbourne Common: https://www.deeproot.com/blog/blog-entries/lessons-from-three-adjacent-silva-cell-projects

These trees all arrived from the same nursery in poor condition, many with co-dominant stems and other undesirable physical characteristics. Poor quality nursery trees are less tolerant of transplant shock and establishment stress, further predisposing them to other complications like pests and windthrow.

...

Ormston-Holloway’s report explained that the dieback could be explained by several factors, among them: transplant shock, depth of planting, tree care prior to installation, and nursery conditions. In addition to these factors, a pest – Cottony Maple Scale (Pulvinaria innumerabilis) – is also now present. All of these factors combined caused a “serious decline in vigour.”
Click to expand...

It seems that even six years later, these trees haven't fully recovered.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top