It is, and Melbourne's downtown is very far from dead. In fact, we have quite a bit to learn from them.

I notice that this includes a fairly sizable expansion of the convention centre. This is probably a good thing, given that the MTCC is a bit undersized for major conventions.

I'd also add that the amount of condo space in this development is rather small by recent Toronto standards. I'm guessing that they're anticipating a market slowdown, and Oxford also has deep enough pockets that they're willing to forgo the quick cash infusion that condos can provide for developers.
 
Last edited:
I didn't even know melbourne's casino existed. I just kept thinking of cities like Niagra falls NY, Detroit, etc. that have horrid downtowns with casinos in them.
 
unimaginative2 said:
It is, and Melbourne's downtown is very far from dead. In fact, we have quite a bit to learn from them.

I notice that this includes a fairly sizable expansion of the convention centre. This is probably a good thing, given that the MTCC is a bit undersized for major conventions.
Click to expand...
As a former resident of Melbourne I can assure you the Casino was not built downtown. It is built on a former industrial site across the river - in a very similar position to Exhibition Place.
And that is where any Casino that is in the area should be. Not in the downtown core.

Also, 4000 spaces and a ginormous casino...where the heck are the cars going to travel in that area???? Spadina is already a parking lot most afternoons, this would swamp that area.
Vaughan is spot on.
 
innsertnamehere said:
I didn't even know melbourne's casino existed. I just kept thinking of cities like Niagra falls NY, Detroit, etc. that have horrid downtowns with casinos in them.
Click to expand...

How were their downtowns before the casinos? Did the casinos kill the dts or did they just fail to revive them?

I like the look of this but I think this will make people regret killing the Front Street extension (if they don't already).
 
Last edited:
unimaginative:

The rendering isn't very clear, but it would seem that the "park" element is on top of a podium and not at grade (at least along Front Street).

AoD
 
The park over the railway plan indicates that the plan is a complete non starter. Many people here (including myself) have suggested decking over the central railway tracks and have constantly gotten the same reply. Unless and until the entire USRC is electrified and all trains running through the area are using locomotives capable of running on electric power; then we can not cover the tracks due to the need to exhaust the diesel fumes from the trains.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Decking over the rail corridor - check
Complete redevelopment of the existing MTCC - check
Complete redevelopment of the RBC block - check

I don't think there is much more to ask for. Speaking of the "illustrative renderings" - am I the only one seeing a hint of Rogers Stirk Harbour?

AoD

PS: So it's actually a Foster project, according to the press release!
Click to expand...

It looks to me like a good Foster project.
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
The park over the railway plan indicates that the plan is a complete non starter. Many people here (including myself) have suggested decking over the central railway tracks and have constantly gotten the same reply. Unless and until the entire USRC is electrified and all trains running through the area are using locomotives capable of running on electric power; then we can not cover the tracks due to the need to exhaust the diesel fumes from the trains.
Click to expand...

why can the same trains go through tunnels then? you would need some sort of exhaust system to pump the fumes out, but this is completely possible.
 
Two huge proposals (ProjectCore and Oxford) totaling 3-5 billion dollars for Toronto in the last week...thats one hot potato for Adam Vaughan:eek:
 
if we got two iconic looking office buildings out of this deal Id be sold. First of all we need more offices downtown. Second of all when we do get offices they are BOXES. Telus, The building across from Telus, The one designed under ICE, Bay Addelaide has TWO boxes... and even the RBC building...
 
Actually, at first glance, I have far less issue with this grand scheme than I do with the Gehry/Mirvish scheme....

Although this might technically be considered 'downtown' to some we should not ignore the reality of the immediate surrounding context which is that of railway lands! This is not the old traditional downtown of Yonge Street, Bloor, King or Queen Streets West where a casino would most definitely wreak havoc... no, this is a reclaimed area that has already been given over to massive tourist infrastructure (CN Tower, Convention Centre, Round House, Aquarium etc)... so really, where's the harm in developing this tourist precinct even further?

If so, doesn't it actually make sense to add a casino into the mix, capitalizing on its positive attributes by adding to the critical mass of tourist layers that already exist, and containing any negative social attributes by anchoring it within a tourist context that for all intents and purposes is already as connected to the real 'Downtown' as the Exhibition grounds are anyway? Makes sense to me... and from this perspective I say go big or go home, let's continue to build a central tourist zone in the city that has some 'meat and potatoes' to it!
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
The park over the railway plan indicates that the plan is a complete non starter. Many people here (including myself) have suggested decking over the central railway tracks and have constantly gotten the same reply. Unless and until the entire USRC is electrified and all trains running through the area are using locomotives capable of running on electric power; then we can not cover the tracks due to the need to exhaust the diesel fumes from the trains.
Click to expand...

Exhaust venting. If I recall correctly from my time in London, England, not all their lines into Euston Station are electrified, and diesel trains enter the station thought similar tunnels and covered structures.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
unimaginative:

The rendering isn't very clear, but it would seem that the "park" element is on top of a podium and not at grade (at least along Front Street).
Click to expand...

Hmm...then I'm not sure how good of a job this will do at its claimed role of bridging the tracks. I wonder how tall this podium will be. I assume at least John Street will continue to cross as it does now. Anyway, replacing an open trench with a park is always a nice trade-off.

The park over the railway plan indicates that the plan is a complete non starter. Many people here (including myself) have suggested decking over the central railway tracks and have constantly gotten the same reply. Unless and until the entire USRC is electrified and all trains running through the area are using locomotives capable of running on electric power; then we can not cover the tracks due to the need to exhaust the diesel fumes from the trains.
Click to expand...

I'm all for electrification, but this really isn't a problem here. The tunnel isn't very long: it's no longer than the covered section at Central Station in Montreal, for example. The entire Empire Connection/West Side Line under Riverside Park in New York isn't electrified. They just included frequent (and fairly unobtrusive) vents.

I must admit to being slightly sad to see the MTCC go. I walked past it every day and it's pretty awful to the street. But like with the Hudson's Bay Centre, there's a little place in my heart for 1970s concrete mixed-use megaprojects. Yes, yes, I know. I need to see a cardiologist.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top