Take it down? Fix it? Try to enhance the space around it? A look at the various alternatives Toronto is considering for the future of the Gardiner Expressway.
<p><strong>OPTION: MAINTAIN CURRENT STRUCTURE</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Every comparative analysis needs a "do nothing" option, but in this case it is a substantial commitment.<br />
<br />
Rebuilding the eastern Gardiner to ensure safe operation for years to come will cost about $270 million. This, plus the lost value of any land that might be freed up with another option, makes even the base case of "nothing" quite expensive.
<p><strong>OPTION: MAINTAIN CURRENT STRUCTURE</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
With this "maintain" option, any improvement in the space near and under the expressway will have to work with the existing structure. <br />
<br />
Examples of similar improvements in Toronto include the lighting installation south of Fort York and Underpass Park in the West Donlands.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
City staff point to examples from other cities, like this one from Zaanstad in the Netherlands, to show what revamping the current structure might look like.<br />
<br />
This case study shows the animation of the underside of an elevated roadway with shops, play spaces, tourist amenities and the like. Whatever the particular amenities, the goal is that the spaces become useable, and used, in and of themselves.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Green Ribbon design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Several designers have come up with proposals for what this improvement might look like. <br />
<br />
This one is from architect Les Klein, who proposes an additional layer above the existing structure that would be a linear park, accessed by ramps and elevators. <br />
<br />
Because it lies above the existing expressway, the park layer would require a structure of comparable width; this could push up its cost.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Green Ribbon design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
The illustration shows how this park structure would look at Bay Street, just south of the Air Canada Centre. This is just to give an idea of how the revised roadway would feel, however—this stretch of the Gardiner isn't actually part of the study area.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Infill park design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Another park alternative, this one by a group of urban designers led by KPMB, proposes to infill the space around and under the expressway with parks.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Infill park design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
This option would also see a bigger green space, dubbed "podium park," created in the long curve of the ramps to the DVP.
<strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Lake Shore shift)</strong><br/><br />
<br />
Finally, a third design alternative in this "improve" category comes from Diller Scofidio + Renfro / Architects. Their idea is to shift Lake Shore Boulevard out from under the expressway to free up this space for parks and open space along the north side of the new street. <br />
<br />
Attractive though this may be, it leaves the bulk of the expressway as a neighbour to buildings on the south side of Lake Shore.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Lakeshore shift)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
In this proposal, at the bend north to the DVP, a large cluster of high rises could be constructed on podia that lift them above roadway level.
<p><strong>OPTION: REPLACE EXISTING STRUCTURE<br />
(Cable bridge alternative)</strong></p><br />
<br />
In this set of design alternatives, the functionality provided by the Gardiner remains, but with a new structure—either elevated above street level, or tunnelled underneath it.<br />
<br />
The first design comes from Jose Gutierrez, who proposes a cable-stayed bridge that would provide space for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and transit. This would be a very large structure (an illustration shows it at least 12 lanes across). <br />
<br />
The design looks impressive, but does not address problems of access let alone the sheer scale of the bridge deck. For the eastern Gardiner it would not require as many lanes as Guitierrez shows, but it would still be substantial, and would retain or accentuate the problem of the shadowed space under the roadway.<br />
<br />
Also, the bridge would actually be installed east of here, not in the downtown core—this rendering is for illustrative purposes only.
<p><strong>OPTION: REPLACE EXISTING STRUCTURE<br />
(Rail corridor alternative)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
West 8 + DTAH and Cecil Balmond AGU propose that the space now occupied by the Gardiner and Lake Shore be reconfigured. The current elevated Gardiner would be removed, and the Lake Shore lanes would be consolidated on the south side of the existing road corridor. The dead space this would create between the existing structure and the rail corridor would be filled in, to raise it up to the height of the rail corridor, and the replacement Gardiner would run on that new raised area. (It wouldn't run <em>over</em> anything though, so it would feel more like a surface road.)
<p><strong>OPTION: REPLACE EXISTING STRUCTURE<br />
(Tunnel alternative)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Finally in the list of replacement options, Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture propose creating a tunnel under the Lake Shore. Their plan also calls for a dedicated transit line to run alongside the Lake Shore at street level.
<p><strong>OPTION: REPLACE EXISTING STRUCTURE<br />
(Tunnel alternative)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
In this design the transition of the Gardiner from elevated road to a tunnel would occur west of Jarvis Street, and a new covered bridge would carry the expressway into the DVP.
<p><strong>OPTION: REMOVE THE GARDINER<br />
(Boulevard design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
In these options, the Gardiner disappears completely to be replaced by a surface road with connections to local streets. <br />
<br />
There's one design alternative here that comes via DTAH, from a previous report for taking down the Gardiner. They have proposed a "grand boulevard" that is eight lanes wide, plus median, and runs south of the rail corridor.
<p><strong>OPTION: REMOVE THE GARDINER<br />
(High rise corridor)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Another removal option comes from Rem Koolhaas / Office for Metropolitan Architecture, who imagine a new Lake Shore Boulevard that would be lined with high-rise development westward to downtown. It would be served by a new subway line (the so-called downtown relief line).
<p><strong>OPTION: REMOVE THE GARDINER<br />
(Boulevard design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
This proposal also calls for a major restructuring of the Gardiner/DVP interchange with a transportation hub east of the Don River on what is now the Lever Bros. site.
<p><strong>OPTION: REMOVE THE GARDINER<br />
(Split road design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Finally, James Corner Field Operations proposes that the entire space between what is now the south side of Lake Shore and the rail corridor be occupied by two new roads. To the north would be a surface-level Lake Shore Boulevard, assuming the Gardiner Expressway's role, and to the south a local street—one which served the area rather than acting as a thoroughfare to downtown—divided from the faster boulevard by a pedestrian promenade.
<strong>OPTION: REMOVE THE GARDINER<br />
(Split road design)</strong><br/><br />
<br />
In this design proposal the sides of the rail corridor, which is elevated relative to street level, would be turned into a vertical green space.
After a three-year hiatus, city council has ordered staff to resume work on looking at the long-term future of the Gardiner Express—specifically, the portion of it that runs east from Jarvis Street to the Don River. The gallery above gives a look at the various alternatives being considered, ranging from a restoration of the current roadway to its complete removal. Below, some history, and an analysis of what comes next.
The Gardiner’s History
From the Toronto Metropolitan Area Master Plan (1943): the thick dark lines show a proposed network of urban superhighways; the dark regions indicate existing or proposed industrial areas.
Toronto’s political history of the mid-20th century is all about highways, and the Gardiner Expressway is a central part of that story. Early designs for a full network of superhighways within the city focused as much on access to industrial lands as on the still-small core office area.
1956-65
Construction of the Gardiner
1971
Premier Davis cancels the Spadina Expressway
1990
Crombie Commission recommends full removal of the Gardiner
1996
Planning for removal of section east of the Don River
2001
Removal of section east of the Don complete
March 2009
Environmental Assessment process starts for Jarvis-to-Don segment
September 2009
Design competition for various Gardiner options launched
Summer 2010
Design competition completed
Fall 2010
Municipal election; work on EA stopped
May 2013
Council approves resuming work on the Environmental Assessment
Planned…
March 2014
Recommendation presented to council
2015-18
Completion of EA process, including provincial approval
2019
Design and preparation work
2020
Construction begins
Once the Gardiner was built, with an elevated roadway that began to cut across the harbour, Torontonians got a better sense of what these urban highways might look like. Ever since, the very idea that we should have such roads has been championed by some and hated by others.
After the Gardiner was complete, many people turned their attention to the proposed Spadina Expressway, and the damage it would bring to the old central part of Toronto. A concerted opposition effort led to the decision to cancel the Spadina project in 1971, and focus more heavily on transit. In making that choice Queen’s Park saved Toronto from becoming a city buried under a web of ramps and flyovers.
The Current Problem
The Gardiner, and its eastern companion the Don Valley Parkway, are already in place, and give a taste of what might have been if the network was complete. But 50 years later, the Gardiner is in sorry shape. Patchwork repairs no longer will do, and a major rebuild of the structure is essential to keeping it safe for traffic into future decades.
Although at one point there were proposals to dismantle the entire Gardiner and replace it with a mixture of surface road and tunneled highway, this scheme is no longer on the table for the central and western sections of the expressway (from Jarvis westward). On May 7, 2013, Toronto council approved a $500 million reconstruction project [PDF] to rebuild the Gardiner starting in the west and working toward the core. This project will continue through to 2019 ending at Rees Street (east of Spadina).
East of downtown, the situation is quite different. Several years ago plans to rebuild the eastern portion of the expressway, work that was originally slated for 2013-17, were put on hold to allow for a robust examination of the road and its long-term future. City council called for an environmental assessment (EA) of possible alternatives for this section, including taking the roadway down. Public consultation began in March 2009, council approved the first stage of that EA (establishing its terms of reference) in August, and the Ministry of Environment signed off on the process on November 30.
Four broad options were included in the terms of reference for the Gardiner assessment:
Maintain the existing expressway.
Improve the existing expressway by making the space around it more inviting and actively used.
Replace the expressway with a new structure.
Remove the expressway and build a new road at grade.
The EA began with a design competition to examine possible treatments of both the expressway and the lands around it. Six firms were invited to produce plans of what might be done with the Jarvis-to-Don segment and their work finished in mid-2010.
Then there was an election.
With Rob Ford on the warpath against David Miller-era transportation plans, the prospect of actually dismantling a chunk of the Gardiner seemed less likely. City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto staff decided to shelve the EA—a decision that came back to haunt them a few month ago, when Toronto council regained the political will to act independently of the mayor, and instructed staff to restart the assessment process.
How We Actually Use the Gardiner
The updated plan for revamping the Gardiner, showing the timeline for different sections of work. Image courtesy of the City of Toronto.
On June 13, 2013, the City of Toronto and Waterfront Toronto jointly presented the 2010 design proposals at a large public forum, the kickoff for the revitalized EA. These proposals, together with a few suggestions from interested members of the public, were displayed in considerable detail on large panels. For context, examples were shown of elevated highways in other cities that have been through similar discussions. The issues and the presentations are summarized in the slide deck [PDF] and a full video of the event.
One important factor is that the eastern Gardiner is not functionally the same as its western half. Originally, this road would have carried traffic not just from the Don Valley Parkway, but also the Scarborough Expressway, one of the unbuilt parts of the abandoned highway network. The existing structure is considerably wider than needed for the demand that is actually placed on it. Moreover, the Jarvis-to-Don segment functions mainly as a link from the DVP to the downtown core, and is not complicated by many busy ramps to the local streets. The eastern Gardiner serves a lower demand than the western section, and much of the traffic on that eastern section is bound for the core, not further west.
The challenge is to find a road configuration for the Gardiner and Lake Shore that addresses traffic needs while improving the space around the expressway structure.
The Design Competition
The results of the design competition tend to be heavy on architectural work, showing how a neighbourhood would be constructed around the expressway as opposed to the physical form of the roadway itself. Since the competition was held in 2010, development plans for the area have evolved, and some of the schemes may conflict with the newer proposals for the surrounding areas. The designs should be viewed as starting points for debate, as a source of ideas, not as definitive statements.
The eastern Gardiner suffers from its northern neighbour, the railway corridor, which blocks the evolution of the ground-level space as a passageway. It’s important to bear this in mind, especially for options that call for maintaining the current structure but improving the area around it. For that to make sense people would have to spend a bit of time in the area as a destination, not simply pass through on their way elsewhere. The presence of more attractive areas nearby—namely Queens Quay and the waterfront—pull foot traffic away from, not toward, the Gardiner. This is a challenge for those who would exploit the space under the existing structure.
Some proposals include a transit corridor, but this runs into a number of problems. The Gardiner will not be rebuilt until the mid 2020s, after development on Queens Quay is well advanced and a higher capacity local transit line already serves that street. Anything at the Gardiner corridor faces competition from what will already exist. Moreover, a new highway will end at Jarvis, and a transit line will have to find its way westward through current structures.
There is much to digest in the design proposals, and some of these will not survive cost or functional reviews. Toronto will likely wind up with a hybrid scheme, and every proposal is worth looking at for the elements it can contribute.
The City of Toronto is conducting an online consultation about the future of the Gardiner. You can submit your thoughts until June 30.
<p><strong>OPTION: MAINTAIN CURRENT STRUCTURE</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Every comparative analysis needs a "do nothing" option, but in this case it is a substantial commitment.<br />
<br />
Rebuilding the eastern Gardiner to ensure safe operation for years to come will cost about $270 million. This, plus the lost value of any land that might be freed up with another option, makes even the base case of "nothing" quite expensive.
<p><strong>OPTION: MAINTAIN CURRENT STRUCTURE</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
With this "maintain" option, any improvement in the space near and under the expressway will have to work with the existing structure. <br />
<br />
Examples of similar improvements in Toronto include the lighting installation south of Fort York and Underpass Park in the West Donlands.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
<br />
City staff point to examples from other cities, like this one from Zaanstad in the Netherlands, to show what revamping the current structure might look like.<br />
<br />
This case study shows the animation of the underside of an elevated roadway with shops, play spaces, tourist amenities and the like. Whatever the particular amenities, the goal is that the spaces become useable, and used, in and of themselves.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Green Ribbon design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Several designers have come up with proposals for what this improvement might look like. <br />
<br />
This one is from architect Les Klein, who proposes an additional layer above the existing structure that would be a linear park, accessed by ramps and elevators. <br />
<br />
Because it lies above the existing expressway, the park layer would require a structure of comparable width; this could push up its cost.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Green Ribbon design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
The illustration shows how this park structure would look at Bay Street, just south of the Air Canada Centre. This is just to give an idea of how the revised roadway would feel, however—this stretch of the Gardiner isn't actually part of the study area.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Infill park design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Another park alternative, this one by a group of urban designers led by KPMB, proposes to infill the space around and under the expressway with parks.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Infill park design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
This option would also see a bigger green space, dubbed "podium park," created in the long curve of the ramps to the DVP.
<strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Lake Shore shift)</strong><br/><br />
<br />
Finally, a third design alternative in this "improve" category comes from Diller Scofidio + Renfro / Architects. Their idea is to shift Lake Shore Boulevard out from under the expressway to free up this space for parks and open space along the north side of the new street. <br />
<br />
Attractive though this may be, it leaves the bulk of the expressway as a neighbour to buildings on the south side of Lake Shore.
<p><strong>OPTION: IMPROVE THE CURRENT STRUCTURE<br />
(Lakeshore shift)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
In this proposal, at the bend north to the DVP, a large cluster of high rises could be constructed on podia that lift them above roadway level.
<p><strong>OPTION: REPLACE EXISTING STRUCTURE<br />
(Cable bridge alternative)</strong></p><br />
<br />
In this set of design alternatives, the functionality provided by the Gardiner remains, but with a new structure—either elevated above street level, or tunnelled underneath it.<br />
<br />
The first design comes from Jose Gutierrez, who proposes a cable-stayed bridge that would provide space for motorists, cyclists, pedestrians and transit. This would be a very large structure (an illustration shows it at least 12 lanes across). <br />
<br />
The design looks impressive, but does not address problems of access let alone the sheer scale of the bridge deck. For the eastern Gardiner it would not require as many lanes as Guitierrez shows, but it would still be substantial, and would retain or accentuate the problem of the shadowed space under the roadway.<br />
<br />
Also, the bridge would actually be installed east of here, not in the downtown core—this rendering is for illustrative purposes only.
<p><strong>OPTION: REPLACE EXISTING STRUCTURE<br />
(Rail corridor alternative)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
West 8 + DTAH and Cecil Balmond AGU propose that the space now occupied by the Gardiner and Lake Shore be reconfigured. The current elevated Gardiner would be removed, and the Lake Shore lanes would be consolidated on the south side of the existing road corridor. The dead space this would create between the existing structure and the rail corridor would be filled in, to raise it up to the height of the rail corridor, and the replacement Gardiner would run on that new raised area. (It wouldn't run <em>over</em> anything though, so it would feel more like a surface road.)
<p><strong>OPTION: REPLACE EXISTING STRUCTURE<br />
(Tunnel alternative)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Finally in the list of replacement options, Adrian Smith + Gordon Gill Architecture propose creating a tunnel under the Lake Shore. Their plan also calls for a dedicated transit line to run alongside the Lake Shore at street level.
<p><strong>OPTION: REPLACE EXISTING STRUCTURE<br />
(Tunnel alternative)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
In this design the transition of the Gardiner from elevated road to a tunnel would occur west of Jarvis Street, and a new covered bridge would carry the expressway into the DVP.
<p><strong>OPTION: REMOVE THE GARDINER<br />
(Boulevard design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
In these options, the Gardiner disappears completely to be replaced by a surface road with connections to local streets. <br />
<br />
There's one design alternative here that comes via DTAH, from a previous report for taking down the Gardiner. They have proposed a "grand boulevard" that is eight lanes wide, plus median, and runs south of the rail corridor.
<p><strong>OPTION: REMOVE THE GARDINER<br />
(High rise corridor)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Another removal option comes from Rem Koolhaas / Office for Metropolitan Architecture, who imagine a new Lake Shore Boulevard that would be lined with high-rise development westward to downtown. It would be served by a new subway line (the so-called downtown relief line).
<p><strong>OPTION: REMOVE THE GARDINER<br />
(Boulevard design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
This proposal also calls for a major restructuring of the Gardiner/DVP interchange with a transportation hub east of the Don River on what is now the Lever Bros. site.
<p><strong>OPTION: REMOVE THE GARDINER<br />
(Split road design)</strong><br />
</p><br />
<br />
Finally, James Corner Field Operations proposes that the entire space between what is now the south side of Lake Shore and the rail corridor be occupied by two new roads. To the north would be a surface-level Lake Shore Boulevard, assuming the Gardiner Expressway's role, and to the south a local street—one which served the area rather than acting as a thoroughfare to downtown—divided from the faster boulevard by a pedestrian promenade.
<strong>OPTION: REMOVE THE GARDINER<br />
(Split road design)</strong><br/><br />
<br />
In this design proposal the sides of the rail corridor, which is elevated relative to street level, would be turned into a vertical green space.