Opportunities

What is the master plan?
Densities?
How will investment be made?
How can you participate in development and land use?

[updated 2009-04-20 20:24]

What the Gardiner crated mostly is a bleak, dark tunnel. I agree with some respondents that it is really the Lakeshore that causes the most separation from downtown, but the Gardiner adds a bleakness that makes it almost forboding. If the Gardiner were removed and a park established in those areas which are now under the Gardiner, it would at least be more inviting. Maybe a walkway, or series of walkways over the Lakeshore with a new green area to look down on would help lift the spirit of the area and make it more inviting despite the Lakeshore. Maybe the Lakeshore should be burried and that whole strip made into a park with pedestrian and bicycle pathways, fountains, sculpture gardens, outdoor art installations, and perhaps a tented art park in summer.

Marcia Crist

[updated 2009-04-20 18:03]

I hope the grand boulevard will be better looking than University Avenue. The University Avenue that only exists in the pictures was a lovely roadway, but I don't think in today's age we'll get a treed route.

I would like the grand boulevard to be a place with street cafes and such. There will need to be some room for cultural use along the street. Put a nice library there. (I know that George Brown College is going to be in the area, and that helps) I hope we don't have it designed for traffic only. That just creates dead streets.

[updated 2009-04-09 17:16]

To effectively deal with the north south access issue, the air space over the rail lines should be bought, leased or expropriated by the city.

The trains ideally should be tunnelled into and out of Union Station from the DVP to the 427 at a minimum. Alternatively, they could be dropped into a trench to allow for at-grade bridges to provide north-south linkage for all modes of traffic, and to allow for intermittent sections of green space that would partially cover the trench.

Through traffic should be also tunnelled from the DVP across to the 427 and QEW, with very limited access and entry points to this express tunnel. Local traffic could be handled by a lesser roadway on the surface. Local public transit vehicles could share the same surface roadway, with designated express lanes and priority right-of-way at intersections. (When it is fast and efficient, people will want to use it.)

If the trains are trenched instead of tunnelled, parallel roadways could be tucked in the same trench, or, more desirably, and to achieve a narrower trench, deep trenching with multiple layers of traffic could be built. For example, trains at lowest level, east flowing traffic above, west flowing traffic on top but still below grade.

The major emphasis of the design of the entire project should be to increase and improve public transit abilities and to decrease the appetite for driving as a way of life in downtown Toronto. We should not stop the fix at Jarvis. This is our chance for the right east-west (DVP to 427) solution. Be Toronto the Brave!

[updated 2009-04-08 18:40]

I have two major concerns about the end result of tearing down the Gardiner. First, if the DVP traffic is to merge with Lakeshore traffic, going west or east, then there will be continuous backups of cars on the Lakeshore, and because the City doesn't like co-ordinating lights so that traffic moves along, there will be much more idling pollution created than there already is.

Second, I can't see how the previous demolition of the eastern part of the Gardiner increased access to the Lake and so can't see how this proposed demolition will either. Sure, the Lakeshore looks better, but that's about it, other than for the industry and big stores that lines the Lakeshore. Why would we think that taking down the Gardiner east of Jarvis would be any different? I can't see how there would be any better public access to the lake. And as a few have mentioned, what's likely is that condos will expand east of Jarvis as they have west of Jarvis along the Lakeshore all the way to Strachan and then picking up again now at Windemere.

[updated 2009-04-04 08:13]

I'm of the belief that the Gardiner should remain intact on the East end of the city. The Gardiner is visually stunning where it meets the keeting channel, and it would be a shame to see such a landmark go. I think the main reason the best proposed option has been to tear it down - is that it is the cheapest long term solution.

But, I think there are other reasonable options that leave the gardiner intact, and resolve many of it's problems as a so called 'barrier'. One option that continually comes to mind is that of the high-line in New York City, an abandoned raised rail way track that mirrors that gardiner's infrastructure in many ways. Instead of tearing it down, New York is making it into a giant park. Imagine that - the Gardiner being planted as a Garden - it could be Toronto's equivalent of Central Park.

As for traffic, I think the lakeshore would obviously need some expansion - which will have to happen weather or not the Gardiner stays or goes. And if that wouldn't work, perhaps we could rethink how we access the city. Is there a reason everyone needs to park downtown? If enough parking was provided in the Portlands, a shuttle could be provided (subway, streetcar, ect.) on the Gardiner, or using the new Queens Quay line into the downtown. Millions of Go Transit users already commute in this manner, if people wanted to save time, they could use the shuttle - while the lakeshore would still be there if they're willing to contend with traffic.

[updated 2009-04-04 00:22]

Whatever is done to the Gardiner, the area has to be made more pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Currently, crossing the Lakeshore at any point is an ugly experience at best, and very frequently hazardous and dangerous (cars and trucks running lights, traffic moving too fast, vehicles weaving into wrong lanes when turning, etc.).

More thought and planning should be given to SAFE bike lanes. The few (east- west) that currently exist are in poor condition, and far too narrow. Those that run north-south across & near Lakeshore are even worse, and fewer.

The city should be doing things to encourage reduction of car traffic. Study cities like Copenhagen and Amsterdam.

Finally, let's try to get this area east of Jarvis correct. The city destroyed the Harbourfront area by selling out to condo developers. The area is now little more than concrete and glass towers.
If the developments around Carlaw and Lakeshore are any indication of what's to come, I think it's time to move out of this rapidly ruining city.

[updated 2009-04-02 11:43]

This is an opportunity to improve access to the waterfront for all, not just pedestrians. Really, the only pedestrians trying to cross the Lakeshore (and supposedly being impeded by the Gardiner) are those who were not able to drive or take public transit directly there. We need to improve all modes of transit leading there. Build free/cheap parking lots. Build a subway stop there. Make direct buses there...and then the pedestrians will never have to endure the Lakeshore or Gardiner, as they will pass right under it on a bus, train, subway and gloriously end up right next to the wonderful new green space.

[updated 2009-04-02 11:06]

The Gardiner provides a major East West Freeway link. It moves traffic and minimizes through traffic going downtown. The view for tourists coming into the city of the lake is beautiful. A large busy boulevard is more of an impediment to access to the lakeshore then the Gardiner Expressway. Also tearing down the Gardiner will leave the elevated railway corridor and wall of condos intact. A beautiful lakeshore will attract people even with the Gardiner intact the way it is. Tearing down of the Gardiner is a waste of Property Taxpayers, the money would better be spent on TTC subway lines.

[updated 2009-04-01 19:05]

I get nervous when I am crossing Lakeshore Blvd at the best of times. Widening it will NOT make it more pedestrian friendly. Pedestrians and large volumes of traffic don't mix.

Lakeshore Blvd needs to be rebuilt on a human scale of 4 to 6 lanes lined with shops/restaurants/housing/business' with local transit like Spadina or University Avenue.

The Gardiner needs to be improved or replaced, not removed. I'm pro-transit to the point that I don't even have a drivers license. But I'm not a rabid cyclist or anti-car.

Like it or not, the city needs more expressway/freeway capacity: Not less.

Get all those cars off the side streets and give them the open expressways that they love.

But don't put a toll on it. Drivers are already paying a premium.

The view from my window is the Allen Road at Eglinton. What a mess!

This is why I think that the Viaduct over the railway is a better solution.

The "barrier" between the rest of the city and the lake front isn't going to disappear. The viaduct will, to me at least, be an attractive structure if they build the cable
stayed viaduct.

Build the viaduct with the biggest capacity possible and then Lakeshore Blvd can be reduced to a more human scale.

It is cheaper to sling a viaduct over the city than it is to tunnel under it.

The months and years of digging construction along the existing route would be intolerable.

The linear park is cute, but isn't that what the waterfront is for? Isn't part of this project aimed at improving access to the waterfront?

If developers and private investors want the malls, condos and parks, they can chip in, but public money is for infrastructure.

I do agree that the viaduct should include rapid transit.

Not little trollies with stops every 200 meters, but heavy transport to rival the Bloor Danforth Subway with stations closer to 1 kilometer apart.

Scrap or revise Transit City and run a Monorail along the Viaduct in a big circle.

* Down the Don Valley
* Across the Viaduct
* Up the Humber Valley and Black Creek
* Across the Hydro corridor North of Finch Avenue
* Back down the Don Valley

There are two general types of monorail: Supported and Suspended.

Moscow Russia has a Supported type that has proven to be safe and efficient in a cold and snowy climate:
http://www.monorails.org/tMspages/Moscow.html

This is the type that most people are familiar with because of Disney, Las Vagas and Sydney...

For Suspended types and in keeping with the cable stayed viaduct is the Safege Monorail would likely be the best choice:
http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/TPSafege.html
http://www.monorails.org/tmspages/Shonan2003a.html
http://www.aerobus.com/

The problem isn't with choosing monorail, but with choosing which monorail.

Other than extensions out to the airport in the west and points east the loop would give the biggest bang for the buck.

Ron Wm. Hurlbut

[updated 2009-03-31 11:58]

The opportunity here is to improve E/W transit with high-speed light rail while improving N/S pedestrian access to the lake. Tearing down the expressway is a short-sighted denial of transportation necessities. The link from QEW to DVP is essential for all realistic future transportation options.

[updated 2009-03-31 01:32]

I've lived in the city for years and have no real sense of connection to the lakefront, living as I do in central downtown Toronto. From the planned Pier 27 to the Westin Harbour Castle, I can barely see or enjoy the lake regardless. The issue is the improvement of public space and it's not clear that there will be a fundamental change, Gardiner or not.

[updated 2009-03-29 14:06]

I would be cautious about creating too much greenspace adjacent to the corridor - look at Riverdale Park (East and West) with the DVP cutting through. It`s disconnected, noisy, dusty, and smells of emissions. At least a wall of condos or other uses will block that (similar to Queen`s Quay West).

I think the connection to the DVP provides an excellent opportunity to create a gateway and `place`through innovative engineering. A major traffic circle would provide an interesting gateway, and could allow for easy pedestrian circulation with some strategic grade separation. It also offer `monumental`space in the middle.

[updated 2009-03-29 12:53]

We should look at New Urbanism plans - boulevards featuring express lanes in the center, local lanes on the sides, and tree-planted medians between the express and local lanes, with parallel parking along all curbs. Public transit and bike lanes could be part of the local lanes; Large sidewalks with street level store fronts right up on the sidewalk and lots of places to sit and relax.
I think if condos were to be considered for development there, they MUST have street level retail space and height restrictions so that it is on a more human scale.

[updated 2009-03-28 10:56]

-Set a building standard on any new streets restricting development to buildings that represent classical Toronto (i.e. brick, no glass and steel) with mixed use business/residential (i.e. Little Italy, Queen West past Bathurst, Parkdale, Danforth) giving a part of the new area a desirable appeal instead of just an overbearing cold feeling.
-New restrictions on the height of buildings so we put a stop to the condo towers blocking the view of the waterfront.
-With the Gardner gone or moved over the rail lands (as the http://www.toviaduct.com/ idea suggests/) we should direct street traffic away from Queens Quay and make it a pedestrian mall w/TTC-Streetcar access.
-All new residential development should be mixed income like St. Lawrence market so the waterfront doesn't continue to essentially be a suburban enclave in the front of the city.
-More parks and where possible and suitable fill in land to create a waterfront path that is unrestricted from Bathurst Street to at the very least Yonge Street.

[updated 2009-03-27 19:48]

A far better alternative to the long-time issue of the Gardiner is to replace it with a cable-stayed viaduct running above the rail corridor. This way you can build a better structure of greater traffic capacity, a new waterfront transit line, new bicycle lanes, while also letting the redevelopment of Lake Shore Boulevard.

Also, under the rail lines, you can transform it into an inhabitable structure for commerce and services to the waterfront communities.

This is the best way to just not maintain connectivity, but to increase it (East-West and North-South), while improving the urban landscape of the waterfront.

More information can be found at: www.toviaduct.com

[updated 2009-03-27 13:46]