News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

I actually disagree about making people pay to park. It'd be a huge tax on people who put their kid in hockey. For example, growing up, I was on the ice at minimum 5 days per week for 9 months of the year. Hockey is already the most expensive sport in Canada to play (my parents regularly spent $5000+ per season for me to play) and even if you were asking parents to pay $5 to park, you'd be asking parents to pay $1000 just to bring their kid and stay to watch him/her. Also take in to account that's just for one kid. My brother was on the ice 2 or 3 times per week for 7 months of the year and rarely did the ice times match up meaning my parents sometimes had to make two trips to the arena in a day. For a sport that is quickly becoming a middle-class sport to play, anything that makes it even more expensive is horrible, not just for our culture but in our promotion of recreation.

Also, carpooling isn't easy in hockey. Most cars fit 2 hockey bags at most. Ya, when I was living to Peterborough we would fit 5 of us in a car with 2 bags in the trunk, a bag on the lap of the front seat passenger, and two on the laps of guys in the back, but good luck getting away with that in Toronto. You're talking about 90degree visibility for the driver. People would need vans to carpool with equipment, and yes many hockey families have them, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

Also, has anyone tried bringing their hockey equipment on the TTC? It's not a fun experience even for someone who is strong enough to carry their equipment long distances. Also, kids carry their own equipment (its a hockey thing... I would never have been caught dead having my parents carry my equipment after I turned 7 years old) and to ask them to haul their gear on the TTC wouldn't be fair, especially if that kid is coming from Etobicoke.

Again, I'm all for finding alternatives, but a lot of the solutions being proposed (underground parking, paid parking) pose many issues without someone who is willing to bite the bullet and cough up the money.
 
Last edited:
lets face facts hockey is a rich persons sport. You need to pay for ice time, you have expensive equipment, and often the prices just to sign up is crazy. That being said if its become a rich persons sport then I have no problem charging for parking. Pay to play. Why should the government be in the business of helping people who for the most part afford to eat the extra costs.
 
Glen:

It doesn't take a genius to figure out a posting filled with expletives is inapprorpriate both for this thread and forum. Please do not repost again.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
For Miller, these developments will call into question his self-styled role as one of the greenest mayors in North America. It was he who lobbied to get the waterfront named one of 17 “large-scale urban projects” designated by the Clinton Foundation as “climate positive communities.”


AoD
Click to expand...

The only green aspect of Miller's administration is the green he's been pumping into union contracts. Any true environmentalist can tell you that NDP-like policies are as bad, sometimes, worst than the laisser-faire policies of conservative ideology.

The environment is usually on the last page, if at all, of any union backed government.

SOme grad student should do a study of all the wasted, incomplete, over-extended projects that's happened by the administration and foot them the carbon bill.
 
Care to name some of these "true environmentalist" you speak of? And yes, speaking of laisser-faire policies of the conservative ideology being good (by default) for the environment, well I am sure the history is filled with examples of corporations voluntarily complying with (if not advocating for) vigorous environmental standards and practices? Like BP, Exxon, etc., I suppose? Perhaps some grad student should do a study of how much the public have to foot the carbon bill for those events.

AoD
 
Last edited:
sixrings said:
lets face facts hockey is a rich persons sport. You need to pay for ice time, you have expensive equipment, and often the prices just to sign up is crazy. That being said if its become a rich persons sport then I have no problem charging for parking. Pay to play. Why should the government be in the business of helping people who for the most part afford to eat the extra costs.
Click to expand...

That post reeks of someone who has never played the game. It's not a rich person's sport, but it's certainly becoming harder and harder for parents to put their kids in it (and part of the problem is not enough arenas,thereby driving the cost of ice upwards). My parents made a lot of sacrifices to put me through hockey on salaries that would be considered below Toronto's median income. Adding $1000 annually to their expenses wouldn't help anyone and only penalizes the families that can barely afford to put their kid in hockey. We should be doing everything we can to make the game more accessible, not creating barriers.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Care to name some of these "true environmentalist" you speak of? And yes, speaking of laisser-faire policies of the conservative ideology being good (by default) for the environment, well I am sure the history is filled with examples of corporations voluntarily complying with (if not advocating for) vigorous environmental standards and practices? Like BP, Exxon, etc., I suppose? Perhaps some grad student should do a study of how much the public have to foot the carbon bill for those events.

AoD
Click to expand...

Dude.. I said as BAD as the cons... pretty sneaky, sure you don't work in miller's 'PR' department?

Efficiency is more environmentally friendly, this government is not efficient.

Ripping up roads three times over to be 1.5 times over budget is not environmentally friendly.

Having busses run every 15 minutes to the middle of nowhere with only 2 -3 people (in the name of 'service') in it is not efficient, and environmentally friendly (but it si good policy for union membership expansion).

Redoing sidewalks because there is 200k left over on the capital budget is not environmentally friendly....

Ripping up a perfectly good roof to put in a green roof??? doesn't pay dividends until 45+ years later. Green roofs have 3 times the carbon footprint initially as asphalt roofs... not until 45 years later is that trend reversed (there are many reputable environmental journals that show this, google it)

etc etc etc.

But yes, I said AS BAD as the cons... YOU said by default....


Yes, there is a cost to 'progress'

it's a matter if it's sustainable or not, and unfortunately, this goverment has long past the sustainable threshold.
 
valkoholic said:
Not sure why people are resigning over this. If you're hired to make something work then find a way to get it done, don't walk away.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there are other issues. This is likely just the straw that broke the camel's back. If you are hired to do something and not given the tools or the means to do it the way you would like to or have the ability to, quitting might be your best option. Being part of a disaster is bad for one's reputation.
 
js:

Efficiency is more environmentally friendly, this government is not efficient.
Click to expand...

The first part is true, not so the second part.

Ripping up roads three times over to be 1.5 times over budget is not environmentally friendly.
Click to expand...

And how much road ripping can be attributed to private sector (telco, gas, etc) annually? Was there any attempt by these interests to coordinate their effort?

Having busses run every 15 minutes to the middle of nowhere with only 2 -3 people (in the name of 'service') in it is not efficient, and environmentally friendly (but it is good policy for union membership expansion).
Click to expand...

While having everyone in the area serviced by these bus routes riding SUVs (or even Prius) and hauling what, a ton of metal at 40kph for EACH driver is more efficient? Just saying.

Redoing sidewalks because there is 200k left over on the capital budget is not environmentally friendly....
Click to expand...

If it is necessary to be done, then why is it not "environmentally friendly"? Is it any less environmentally friendly than say the cumulative effect of maintaining vehicular access to roads - which is excarbated by the amount of roadways needed to accomodate private vehicles?

Ripping up a perfectly good roof to put in a green roof??? doesn't pay dividends until 45+ years later. Green roofs have 3 times the carbon footprint initially as asphalt roofs... not until 45 years later is that trend reversed (there are many reputable environmental journals that show this, google it)
Click to expand...

If you are too lazy to cite the study or hoping that mentioning just what fits your worldview pass muster, here it is the quote from the abstract of An Integrated Assessment of the Sustainability of Green and Built-up Roofs, by Muga et al, 2008 in the Journal of Green Building, v.3, n.2, 106-127

"...Environmental impact analysis indicates that green roof emits three times more environmental pollutants than built-up roofs in the material acquisition life stage. However, in the use and maintenance life stage, built-up roof emits three times more pollutants than a green roof. Overall, when emissions from both material acquisition life stage and use and maintenance life stage are combined, the built-up roof contributes almost 3 times more (or 46% more) environmental emissions than green roof over a 45-year building life span. Furthermore the overall energy use, specifically energy involved in the transportation from material extraction through to the finished product indicate that green roof uses 2.5 times less energy than a built-up roof...Results from the study indicate that when a green roof is compared to the Midwest regional NPV of a built-up roof, we find that the cost to maintain it ($35 per square foot) lies well below the average regional NPV of $59 per square foot of a built-up roof." (p. 106)

Efficiency, you say? And why shouldn't one be evaulating on the basis of a 45+ year lifespan? Efficiency isn't a short term goal, you know.

AoD
 
Last edited:
For all of the verbiage around this issue, I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around it. I think that just about everyone wants a diversity of uses in this developing neighbourhood. Surely that would include sports facilities? Particularly when it has been documented that arenas are in short supply in Toronto, and possibly getting shorter, if some of the aging existing arenas are not updated? Demand is increasing, as shown by the recent controversy over girls' teams apparently being allocated inadequate ice time. As already mentioned, the arenas which we do have are largely located outside the central city. A new facility near downtown would at least begin to address some of these problems.

No offense to Blovertis and others, but talk that an arena is somehow equivalent to a "suburban wasteland" is nonsense. Stereotype much?

There's no denying that parking is a problem. But a couple of ideas have been mentioned, as to how at least some of it could be handled. A four-level garage might not work, given the fact that the place has a history of contamination, and a relatively high water table. But a lot of parking could be placed at grade level, with the structure itself being above. Another alternative may be sharing of some parking with a nearby facility, which might have complimentary hours? (Office, M-F 9-5, arena evenings and weekends)

Let's see an innovative design and some innovative thinking, not people picking up their marbles and stomping off home.
 
^ The sad thing is that it doesn't even have to be innovative – we could just copy examples of better land-use from elsewhere.

e.g. Kettler Capitals Iceplex in Arlington, VA. This is the practice facility of Washington Capitals, and is open to community use when Ovechkin isn't using it. It's built within a mall, and lies on top of 6-7 storeys of shared mall parking. Google StreetView: http://maps.google.ca/maps?oe=utf-8...8&ll=38.878332,-77.109291&spn=0,0.001179&z=20
 
Last edited:
What I'd like to know is what exactly was the solution that Greenberg had in mind.

What seems clear is that the those in charge have some suburban plan in mind with a lot of surface level parking and don't want to hear alternatives (judging from Greenberg's resignation). So write to Waterfront Toronto and anyone involved and emphasize the need to have the urban design of sports facility match the planned urban character of this new area. Suggest some alternatives to large surface parking lots. I've already written.
 
jn_12 said:
That post reeks of someone who has never played the game. It's not a rich person's sport, but it's certainly becoming harder and harder for parents to put their kids in it (and part of the problem is not enough arenas,thereby driving the cost of ice upwards). My parents made a lot of sacrifices to put me through hockey on salaries that would be considered below Toronto's median income. Adding $1000 annually to their expenses wouldn't help anyone and only penalizes the families that can barely afford to put their kid in hockey. We should be doing everything we can to make the game more accessible, not creating barriers.
Click to expand...
My heart bleeds. And if it's not a rich person's sport, it is definitely becoming a sport for upper income folk.

As for this proposal, governments should get completely out of the business of funding new rinks. The time has come to turn the equation around and put pressure on the hockey establishment to pay for their own new infrastructure. Unlike a generation ago, they're all rolling in dough today.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top