Torontoist: Gardiner Going, Condo Coming, Pets Hiding

sonyactivision

Sun, 01 Jun 2008 00:38:52 -0500

Tear down The Gardiner and replace it with high rise condos. Win-win.

EricSmith

Sat, 31 May 2008 13:38:24 -0500

I'm afraid that I don't see how the Gardiner is a greater barrier to the waterfront than:the rail corridorLakeshore BoulevardQueens Quaythe generally industrial scale of the area once you get there

TokyoTuds

Sat, 31 May 2008 05:27:04 -0500

I for one am glad that the Gardiner is being dismantled bit-by-bit. Good riddance! This along with incremental additions to public transit, and the Gardiner will not be missed when it is finally gone all the way to the 427. Tuds

torlu

Fri, 30 May 2008 21:08:49 -0500

Anyone else a little concerned about students peering in their windows looking for animals? I work at home, my bedroom is at the front of the house. Do I have to worry about a city-hired peeping tom?

Marc Lostracco

Fri, 30 May 2008 15:34:23 -0500

I miss the Yonge & Bloor Harvey's, but I don't miss the attitude there. Grumpiest service workers on planet earth—when they weren't screaming at each other.

Lauriemc

Fri, 30 May 2008 15:14:02 -0500

I don't believe for a second that the reason no one accesses the waterfront is because of the Gardiner. And Miller was against the idea in 2006 because it wasn't a priority. Now, a couple years later, and just passed a bankruptcy scare, NOW is the time to tear down the Gardiner. Was he lying then? or now?

tyrannosaurus_rek

Fri, 30 May 2008 15:08:52 -0500

I'm glad someone else is missing the Yonge/Bloor Harvey's.

Skippy the Magical Racegoat

Fri, 30 May 2008 14:29:33 -0500

Thanks, torontothegreat. I would add that if it's not torn down, it's eventually going to need to be rebuilt at great expense. Obviously traffic flow within Toronto is not working very well. One could argue that the city simply wasn't meant to handle the kind of traffic we have. Anyway, most projections show that rerouting traffic sans Gardiner should only add a few minutes of driving time. There have been many alternatives to the Gardiner proposed. Whether we have the money or vision to accomplish them is another story. But I think this basic gesture, at the expense of some inconvenience to motorists, is still greatly beneficial and as I said before, a wise investment. Road tolls would have been another sound investment. But Miller has already shot that one down for some reason.

Acadie

Fri, 30 May 2008 14:29:08 -0500

So let me understand this, build more horrid looking structures ( tell me all you want they are not, just wasting your typing), tear down one of of two the major highways into the downtown core , raise taxes by building even more unsightly towers that actually hamper access and block the view of our waterfront and we will transport all these goods into the City? by mule maybe. How is it blocking access to the waterfront? I keep hearing that inane argument how exactly is it blocking access to the waterfront? I been able to get to the waterfront now for over 40 years with no issues, since we have gone Condo crazy down there my access has become limited and my view is now hampered.

torontothegreat

Fri, 30 May 2008 14:09:03 -0500

>please explain how taking away the only downtown highway corridor is a "great future investment". >maintaining the Gardiner costs a great deal. answer your question?

fantasygoat

Fri, 30 May 2008 13:40:51 -0500

Hey Skippy - please explain how taking away the only downtown highway corridor is a "great future investment". I've lived out in Leslieville for over a decade now and I've only notice and *increase* in the amount of traffic on the Gardiner from there and back - my commute has gone from 15 minutes to 30 minutes, and it's not 905's heading home, they're exiting at Lakeshore on the eastern end. Even if you replace it with 10 lanes of traffic, there are still stop lights and crosswalks, so the traffic will be even slower than it is now. Thanks the the NIMBYs, we only have two north-south highways as well, so really the city is crippled.

Skippy the Magical Racegoat

Fri, 30 May 2008 13:27:04 -0500

- It's not about getting "a better look at" the ugly condos, it's getting access to them and the surrounding waterfront facilities. - The aesthetics of the condominium buildings in question are actually quite subjective. The Gardiner, on the other hand, is objectively fugly. - People, believe it or not, live in these condos. If you want to avoid suburban sprawl, you have to build up. The only other option is subterranean housing. (Note: This option does not exist.) - The city is not flush with cash. The city is broke. Nevertheless, maintaining the Gardiner costs a great deal of this cash. Tearing it down is a great future investment. - If you want to increase tax dollars for schools and impoverished residents, aka the poor, you need to raise said tax dollars. Adding desirable real estate in appropriate areas has proven the best way to accomplish this. Shortened version for the YouTube generation: LEAVE UGLY CONDOS ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!

andrew

Fri, 30 May 2008 13:03:36 -0500

Win some, lose some: no more Front Street extension because of this. The good/bad news brought by none other than Deputy Mayor Joe Pantalone.

Acadie

Fri, 30 May 2008 12:07:17 -0500

Why bother? So we can get a better look at those ugly Condos? Yup the city is so flush with cash there are not far better ways to use our tax dollars then like you know helping our impoverished residents, more money for our schools, etc.

Skippy the Magical Racegoat

Fri, 30 May 2008 11:06:22 -0500

Mr. Miller, open this waterfront. Mr. Miller...tear down this expressway!