Tearing down the Gardiner - WTF??

[Dewalt]

You guys are missing the real point here:

The urban sprawl and traditional way of commuting to work is coming to an end. There are more telecommuters nowadays, a trend that will continue over the coming decades. Plus the suburban towns attract more and more big business to them so the concept of driving into the big city to do work for the day and then turn around and go home is going to be going the way of the dodo.

Besides, we don't want 905'ers in the downtown area. You can stay with your bland lives out in the GTA.

;P

 

[yaya17]

The urban sprawl and traditional way of commuting to work is coming to an end. There are more telecommuters nowadays, a trend that will continue over the coming decades.

Try telling that to the thousands of people trapped on the 404/DVP southbound, 427 southbound, and QEW Toronto bound each morning between 6 and 9

 

[Tangwhich]

I, for one, can't wait for the day that the Gardiner is torn down in its entirety. Whatever your views on commuting, the expressway is a brutal eyesore that has cut Toronto off from the one geographic element that distinguishes an otherwise dull and uninspiring setting: the lake.

I would agree with you 100%, if there were no condos down there.
What you're suggesting *might* have been a good idea 10 years ago, but now the damage is done. The condos are there for life and a nice lakeshore will never happen.

 

[antaeus]

For as long as I can remember every idea / plan / debate / proposal / massive event (olympics) / election in Toronto has been predicated on the harbour and waterfront revitalization starting with tearing down the elevated portion of the Gardiner.

Numerous studies by numerous bodies and committees have been commisioned and paid for.

Nothing has been done.

Another debate is started requesting another study.

It will be completed.

Nothing will be done.

The elevated Gardiner was planned and built for good reasons at the time. Since then, much debate and arrogant assertions unto false fact have claimed aesthetic eyesore as reason to tear it down. If you had chance to visit this or any years' Toronto outdoor art festival you would realize that the Gardiner is not an eyesore to some people: artists, photographers, playwrites, etc., have used it as their muse and stage more times than politicians, urban planners, mayors and other empty rhetoric naysyers combined. It is artistic inspiration to some, reasonably effecient people mover to others; featured in movie footage galore from below and on top; and infrequent location of interpretive theatric plays and music performances.

How about a master plan that includes the Gardiner? Maybe, just maybe, what would happen if empty rhetoric based historical failure is put aside and actual realistic new ideas put forth?

If I were to run for mayor I would campaign on exactly this topic.

 

[Plan B]

I would agree with you 100%, if there were no condos down there.
What you're suggesting *might* have been a good idea 10 years ago, but now the damage is done. The condos are there for life and a nice lakeshore will never happen.

Exactly, our waterfront in the downtown core has been ruined by condo development. David Miller wants bury the Gardiner and say he was the waterfront savior. The Gardiner needs to stay, as the city and province will never committ to providing an adequate transportation system necessary for the city. I wish we could drop this debate and concentrate on looking at areas we could fix, heck you turn the whole area near Cherry Beach into something that resembled Navy Pier in Chicago.

 

[james t kirk]

The preliminary study on traffic patterns showed that tearing down the Gardiner would add at most a few minutes to commute times. The study used 2006 data and ran it through a traffic computer model employed by Waterfront Toronto. While many people may find this counterintuitive, there is no reason to doubt that the model is robust. Furthermore, the data (and presumably the model itself) do not take into account the impact of increasing gas prices and growing environmentalism. I think it highly likely that high fuel prices will be with us for the long term, and that political pressure favouring mass transit at the expense of private vehicle use will only accelerate. These two factors will likely contribute to lower private vehicle use over the long term than that predicated by the existing model.

I, for one, can't wait for the day that the Gardiner is torn down in its entirety. Whatever your views on commuting, the expressway is a brutal eyesore that has cut Toronto off from the one geographic element that distinguishes an otherwise dull and uninspiring setting: the lake. Toronto is an unprepossessing city with no strong sense of identity. To a great extent this is an outcome of a planning process that has historically lacked vision and leadership. If you compare Chicago and Toronto, you will find that the former, in addition to possessing a wealth of superior architecture and having made major investments in public art, has made the development of the waterfront and its integration with the city a priority. The results are clear for everyone to see: Chicago is a truly world class city with a strong sense of itself and a vibrant waterfront that is a major attraction for residents and tourists alike. Toronto is not.

Are you Robert Fung's son?

Chicago? Are you on glue?

Half of the city is fall down, the other half gated.

Never mind it's the murder capital of the United States of America.

Toronto currently out-classes Chicago in every way shape and form other than (arguably) a skyline.

Not since 1967 has a year concluded with fewer than 600 people being murdered here. Last year's total was 665, up from 631 in 2000. As of Friday, this year's toll stood at 571, with 10 percent of the year yet to go.

Chicago's murder total topped those of all U.S. cities last year. More significantly, Chicago's murder rate -- total homicides divided by the population of 2.9 million -- was the highest of the nine U.S. cities with populations above 1 million.

http://www.poynter.org/dg.lts/id.19727/content.content_view.htm

As to "the model", please, change one of the input assumptions and everything goes right out the window. (Gravity Model anyone?)

The Gardiner Expressway and the DVP are currently free flowing connected urban expressways with a design speed of 120 km/hr.

The champagne socialists down at City Hall keeping refering to the tear down of the eastern leg of the Gardiner (the never constructed Scarborough Expressway) as evidence that this will work. Please, that leg of the Gardiner went nowhere and connected to nothing and basically was a road into the Beaches. You can not logically compare the 2 and make the conclusion that the Gardiner and the Eastern leg are one in the same. The Gardiner and the DVP are currently linked and things work just fine. You want a great city, you need sound transportation links.

Want proof?

Simple, install traffic lights at Jarvis, Parliament, Shorborune, and Cherry and watch the fun in the mornning rush hour. Traffic will be backed up to the 401 on the DVP and the 427 on the Gardiner.

Miller is the biggest catatonic zombie that has ever sat in the Mayor's chair.

 

[james t kirk]

You guys are missing the real point here:

The urban sprawl and traditional way of commuting to work is coming to an end. There are more telecommuters nowadays, a trend that will continue over the coming decades. Plus the suburban towns attract more and more big business to them so the concept of driving into the big city to do work for the day and then turn around and go home is going to be going the way of the dodo.

Besides, we don't want 905'ers in the downtown area. You can stay with your bland lives out in the GTA.

;P

I'm a proud 416er, however, your statement is stupid.

This city is not an island. A lot of high skilled talent comes in from the 905 every day and generates a shit load of money for this city.

Making it more difficult, or impossible to get to their work place is counter productive and will only end up hurting Toronto.

 

[deltaforce]

Where's Mel Lastman when you need him , he would have buried all this gardiner talk in no time

 

[elmufdvr]

bunch of dumb fu@ks... these idoits wont be around when the report is to be compleated..i bet some one has had thies wallet fattened up... dear mayor you are an idiot.. at least mel was a known idiot but he did not do such stupid things .. well at lest with the city's money..

 

[thewheelman]

It's coming down because all the rich landowner/speculators who own the waterfront lands are getting old and want to get their money out.

These are the same good ol boys who groomed Miller for mayor.

 

[cortes]

What do you mean by "the model is robust"? Sounds liek a consultant. Run through the same "modelling" process, communism should be alive and well. Problem is that human factors are largely unmodellable when it comes to traffic.

The model has been tested on other traffic patterns and predicted results that match actual, measured outcomes. Further, what are these "human factors when it comes to traffic"?


More empty bullshit talk.

Well, as has been pointed out by another poster, I am in fact the mayor.


Psssst, even with the Gardiner down, you can't see "the lake". (Or more accurately, a small manmade harbour that smells bad and really is not very interesting.) There are already buildings in the way of your geographic element, with MORE buildings to come once the Gardiner is gone.

In fact, if you haven't noticed.... the roadway is elevated so not only does it not block any views it allows freer access to the vaunted lake than if there were fourteen lanes of surface traffic to cross.

If you look at my post, I didn't say it blocked views (although it does--I work in an office that looks on to the Gardiner, and I'd much rather see buildings, parks and parts of the lake than cars on an expressway). I said it cut the lake off from the city. The expressway creates a physical and psychological barrier between the lake and the rest of the city. Montreal faced a comparable problem with an expressway that cut Old Montreal off from the rest of the city at critical access points. An urban planning firm did a survey of people walking around Chinatown, asking them how far they thought it was to Old Montreal. While it is only about three minutes by foot, most people thought it was 15 to 20 minutes away. At vast expense, Montreal covered up certain parts of the expressway, and the results have generally met with wide approval. But they're just a bunch of tree-hugging environmentalist mimes on stilts in Quebec, so what do they know?

 

[cortes]

Toronto currently out-classes Chicago in every way shape and form other than (arguably) a skyline.

Not since 1967 has a year concluded with fewer than 600 people being murdered here. Last year's total was 665, up from 631 in 2000. As of Friday, this year's toll stood at 571, with 10 percent of the year yet to go.

Chicago's murder total topped those of all U.S. cities last year. More significantly, Chicago's murder rate -- total homicides divided by the population of 2.9 million -- was the highest of the nine U.S. cities with populations above 1 million.

Well, that's world-class violence for you. I never said that Chicago didn't have major social problems. It does, as anyone who has taken the El through the decrepit slums to get to downtown, or who has wandered near the edges of South Side, knows. It still outclasses Toronto by a long shot in terms of culture, the arts, education and public identity. Here's what Wikipeida has to say about it:

Since the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, it has been regarded as one of the ten most influential cities in the world.[3] Among the fields in which its influence has been seen are physics where Chicago Pile-1 served as the world's first artificial nuclear reactor, economics and architecture where it has contributed the Chicago school of architecture. Home of the earliest skyscrapers, it today boasts some of the world's tallest buildings, including the Sears Tower, Aon Center, and John Hancock Center, plus the under-construction Chicago Spire and Trump International Hotel and Tower. The University of Chicago is a leader in many fields and has contributed its own Chicago schools such as Chicago school economics.

I won't bother quoting what Wiki says about Toronto, suffice to say there is no mention of the "Toronto school of architecture," the "Toronto school of economics" or Toronto's contribution to physics or any other scientific field. And notwithstanding Chicago's crime rate, the city wallops Toronto when it comes to tourism, which is a very good surrogate measure of other factors, such as cultural vibrancy, visual appeal and identity. With a comparable population, Chicago attracted 44 million visitors in 2006. Toronto? 19.7 million. This generated $10.9 billion of economic activity for the city, compared to $4.5 billion for Toronto. Sorry, Toronto is not in the same class as Chicago.

 

[cortes]

Miller is the biggest catatonic zombie that has ever sat in the Mayor's chair.

As Mayor, I resent that remark. Surely Barbara Hall was more catatonic?

 

[fuji]

Just where do you expect the traffic to go to?

It turns out traffic obeys the laws of economics.

Removing a highway reduces supply. Demand remains constant. Prices rise (ie: gridlock). As prices (driving time) rise people drive less. Building more roads increases supply, the cost (ie: time) of driving falls, people drive more. So it turns out that no matter how many or how few roads you build you wind up with the same amount of gridlock. People max out the capacity of whatever is there.

Having fewer highways results in more people living in the downtown core so that they don't have to drive.

Having more highways results in more urban sprawl as people start deciding that it's not insane to drive home to Oakville from downtown Toronto.

Since it is actually insane to have people driving from Oakville to get to work in Toronto having fewer highways results in a more efficient, more sensible economy.

 

[fuji]

Note that "intensification" is part of the Official Plan for Toronto, and removing highways and reducing traffic is the key to intensification.

Some people will choose not to work in Toronto anymore, and will relocate their business to the suburb, nearer where they live.

Some people will choose to move nearer the work available in the downtown core, and will start buying up condos and residences nearer where they work.

The result of tearing down the gardiner will be ever more condo development in the city core, an increase in economic activity in the suburbs, and overall less driving, all of which is good.

 

[cortes]

We should team up

Exactly. On top of the aesthetic, environmental and cultural reasons for removing the Gardiner, there are sound economic ones, and as Fuji says, the more people living downtown, the less we need these major arteries that eat up valuable land. Even if a tear down caused congestion, so what? Congestion is just a form of tax on private transportation that increases the cost of living in the burbs and commuting--which would encourage some to consider moving back downtown. And they think I'm a dumb mayor...

Fuji, you and I could be a team--Fuj and Super Dave.

 

[tboy]

Note that "intensification" is part of the Official Plan for Toronto, and removing highways and reducing traffic is the key to intensification.

Some people will choose not to work in Toronto anymore, and will relocate their business to the suburb, nearer where they live.

Some people will choose to move nearer the work available in the downtown core, and will start buying up condos and residences nearer where they work.

The result of tearing down the gardiner will be ever more condo development in the city core, an increase in economic activity in the suburbs, and overall less driving, all of which is good.

Unfortunately fuji, there are some flaws to your arguments:

Many companies will and do pay through the NOSE for a bay st address and that will never change. Even though being close to the stock exchange is pretty much a thing from the past many companies need the prestige of being close.

As for your argument about gridlock forcing people to work elsewhere, that too is not accurate because people have to go where the work is. If you work for a brokerage house that has it's address downtown, you will have to go there to work. Sorry, but there aren't that many brokerage firms in Oshawa.....(crackheads don't buy stocks).

During the 80's the downtown core was running around 20%+ in vacancies of office space and many buildings were offering long term low rent to keep companies in the core. If some remember the massive move of companies to Markham along the 400 (just take a look at what's facing it) and the 400 in mississauga. Whether it is right or not, Toronto IS the financial capitol of Ontario and unless you force companies to move to the 905, that won't ever change.

As for stopping gridlock and the associated pollution the ONLY way you will do that is to award those who live and work within x kms of each other and penlize those that live more than x kms from their place of work.

I still say if the government really wanted to fight pollution etc they'd instigate a tax break for those that don't have to commute. (via public transit or surface vehicle). I recall in the 80's also there was a big push on dual use buildings: offices on the bottom and condos above. Quite a few were built like that.

I remember one guy I worked with who lived at Yonge and Sheppard in the condos above the bus station. He'd come to work in shoes and a sweater during the winter and I'd say "where's your fricken coat" and he replied: what do I need one for? I don't go outside. He took his elevator down to the ground floor, entered the subway station indoors. Got off the subway at Eg and entered our building all indoors......

But this all ties in with who I consider "idiots" who sit for 2 hrs every morning on the 401 coming into the city and another 2 going home at night. Just so they can have a home in some "burb.

I remember back in the early 90's when I found out our receptionist lived in PETERBOROUGH and worked at Yonge and Eg I did a cost analysis study on her fuel/parking costs because she said it was cheaper to live at her parent's place. I think it worked out that in $$$ that she saved about $100 a month due to wear and tear on her car, maintenance, parking at $120.00 a month, and that didn't include the time she sat in her car everyday.

 

[james t kirk]

Note that "intensification" is part of the Official Plan for Toronto, and removing highways and reducing traffic is the key to intensification.

Some people will choose not to work in Toronto anymore, and will relocate their business to the suburb, nearer where they live.

Some people will choose to move nearer the work available in the downtown core, and will start buying up condos and residences nearer where they work.

The result of tearing down the gardiner will be ever more condo development in the city core, an increase in economic activity in the suburbs, and overall less driving, all of which is good.

Just because Intensification is part of the Official Plan (whatever that is) for Toronto doesn't mean it's going to work. (Probably won't) Everyone I know aspires to own their own house eventually at some point in their lives. Doesn't have to be big, not necessarily some huge suburban mansion, but their own piece of turf complete with a bit of a lawn and garden.

The Condos being developed along Spadina are tomorrow's future St Jamestown. When the buildings in St. Jamestown were constructed in the 60's it was touted as the way of the future and they tried to portray it as a hip place to live for young singles (sound familiar?). Today it's one of Toronto's poorest neighbourhoods because no one wants to live there.

Look at the inner city areas of Toronto that work - Riverdale, Beaches, Leslieville, Bloor West Village, Rosedale, High Park, Parkdale, Cabbagetown, etc etc. they all have one thing in common - single family dwellings.

Hate to rain on your latest and greatest urban planning socialist wet dream, but that's the way it always was and that's the way it will always be.

Part of that involves good transportation infrastructure.

Tear down the Gardiner = increase commuter frustration = drive more high paying businesses into Markham, Vaughan, Mississauga, etc.

Toronto has for years been experiencing a net outflow of business activity to the suburbs and with them go their business tax dollars.

Last time I checked, our socialist weenie mayor has bankrupted the City of Toronto. We simply can not afford to sniff at the problems that businesses in the city of Toronto are experiencing. They will simply pack up and leave in even greater numbers.

The Gardiner Expressway was built in the 50's because the City was in gridlock. Old Fred Gardiner didn't build the Lakeshore Expressway because he liked the look of concrete bents. He built it because this city was dying, choking in its own inefficiency. Traffic today is probably about 5 fold greater than it was in the 1950's. People drive cars, and will continue to drive cars until you force them out and then they will leave complete with their property tax dollars.

I maintain that the money spent on this idiotic fool's erand would be better spent building new subways.

 

[james t kirk]

Well, that's world-class violence for you. I never said that Chicago didn't have major social problems. It does, as anyone who has taken the El through the decrepit slums to get to downtown, or who has wandered near the edges of South Side, knows. It still outclasses Toronto by a long shot in terms of culture, the arts, education and public identity. Here's what Wikipeida has to say about it:

Since the Chicago World's Fair of 1893, it has been regarded as one of the ten most influential cities in the world.[3] Among the fields in which its influence has been seen are physics where Chicago Pile-1 served as the world's first artificial nuclear reactor, economics and architecture where it has contributed the Chicago school of architecture. Home of the earliest skyscrapers, it today boasts some of the world's tallest buildings, including the Sears Tower, Aon Center, and John Hancock Center, plus the under-construction Chicago Spire and Trump International Hotel and Tower. The University of Chicago is a leader in many fields and has contributed its own Chicago schools such as Chicago school economics.

I won't bother quoting what Wiki says about Toronto, suffice to say there is no mention of the "Toronto school of architecture," the "Toronto school of economics" or Toronto's contribution to physics or any other scientific field. And notwithstanding Chicago's crime rate, the city wallops Toronto when it comes to tourism, which is a very good surrogate measure of other factors, such as cultural vibrancy, visual appeal and identity. With a comparable population, Chicago attracted 44 million visitors in 2006. Toronto? 19.7 million. This generated $10.9 billion of economic activity for the city, compared to $4.5 billion for Toronto. Sorry, Toronto is not in the same class as Chicago.

Don't know where you're getting your numbers from, don't really care.

Maybe American tourists simply visit Chicago because it's in the States and they don't need a passport - something not that many American possess.

I've been to Chicago several times, it's nice and all - but only in spots. A great deal of it is slums and you can not walk around without taking your life into your own hands. Even the worst neighbourhoods in Toronto aren't even CLOSE to being so bad.

Toronto and Chicago are both about roughly the same size popluation wise - Toronto about 2.6 million and Chicago 2.9 million. (Never mind the area surrounding either city.)

I could go on all day.

But hey, all you have to do is read what internet forum posters are saying when comparing Toronto to Chicago....

http://www.city-data.com/forum/canada/206567-chicago-v-s-toronto.html

 

[benstt]

The expressway creates a physical and psychological barrier between the lake and the rest of the city. Montreal faced a comparable problem with an expressway that cut Old Montreal off from the rest of the city at critical access points.

A load of crap. I, along with many others, walk from the downtown core to Harbourfront nearly every day in the summer. It's a pleasant walk, the biggest issue is crossing the Lakeshore. Being under the Gardiner doesn't bother me, just as being under the eL in Chicago doesn't bother me.

The Gardiner isn't an issue. If you tore it down and left a level roadway, it would be worse to cross.