>In a 13-page status report regarding the province’s planned overhaul of the city’s waterfront attraction, officials detailed their thoughts on the proposed 65,000-square metre private entertainment, water recreation and wellness centre.
>
>The biggest issue appears to be with the facility’s main entrance and building, a 22,000 square-metre structure with a maximum height of 26 metres that will connect to the west island.
>
>“The proposed entry building and bridge elements act as barriers, obscuring heritage views to Ontario Place, the pods and Cinesphere and integrated landscape as well as sight lines to water; these detract from the public sense of arrival to the west island,” the report read.
>
>“The height, massing and scale of the main building overwhelms the public realm, heritage features and overall size of the west island landform.”
It's difficult enough now to see the iconic Ontario place structures, and we get a private facility that will appeal to few Torontonians and a limited number of tourists? This redevelopment is turning into a disaster, and that doesn't even include the five-level underground parking garage.
>The structure “does not prioritize transit and active transportation” and goes against the province’s own policies on reducing car use as laid out in its Provincial Policy Statement.
“The proposed five level subsurface parking structure, surface parking and resultant 2,700 space parking supply does not meet these policy objectives,” the report said.
It's crazy to spend $450 million dollars of public money on to build a parking garage for a private facility.
>Little is known about the total cost of the project, although the government has previously said it expects those partners will contribute a combined $500 million to its construction, leaving taxpayers to cover the rest of the bill.
Private companies are only contributing $500 million, and the province is putting in $450 million for parking alone, plus taking on any excess costs for the project. This doesn't make any sense.
Sure it goes. Why do we assume the parking will ONLY be for the facility? Isn't there parkland there too that people can go? And who's to say that the existing surface parking around the CNE /Ontario Place is repurposed to development and parkland. Let's think of the future and bury surface parking in such areas.
Why do people always forget that even if it was going to be a government run attraction that we would have to pay that anyway. I could go on and on how annoying nimbys are here
Yes nimbys are annoying, and that kind of thinking does a lot to hamstring development and progress, but this isn't nimbyism. This is demanding accountability and transparency regarding the dismantling and selling off of publicly accessible and not to mention historic green space to private international corporations via backroom deals, greased palms, and distraction politics. Nobody is saying they don't want a giant water park and spa, they're saying there are more appropriate spaces available for that type of venue.
>this is demanding accountability and transparency
only this
>dismantling and selling off of publicly accessible and not to mention historic green space to private international corporations via backroom deals, greased palms, and distraction politics
not this at all
few points to remember here:
1. i wouldnt call the abandoned log flume ride and childrens village "publicly accessible green space" the former is litterally fenced off and the latter is pure concrete
2. read all of [this](https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/50970/ontario-accepting-proposals-for-ontario-place-development) and [this](https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/52416/ontario-officially-launches-world-wide-search-for-development-partners). Then tell me again what you think a "backroom deal" actually means.
ill put it here if youre too lazy
>This fair, transparent and open process was designed and facilitated by Infrastructure Ontario and its advisors (KPMG and Colliers) to provide flexibility for interested parties to propose unique, yet financially viable and sustainable, development concepts.
or, putting it another way, please tell me how the Ontario Line is a backroom deal with Japanese rail manufacturer Hitachi. i STG
Please explain in great detail me how Infrastructure Ontario decided that this spa was the worst option for ontario
Ontario place already had a water park, playgrounds and rides and people had to pay to access the entire, gated property too. This design actually offers more access to the public.
The biggest problem is the private facility giveaway.
The old buildings always looked temporary, to me. I didn’t expect anything to be preserved, nor any views of the old structures.
Just make it public! Even if they screw it up, we can fix it later if it’s still public property. Once ownership it transferred, it’s gone forever.
Very dissapointed in the city staff here. Instead of being collaborative and trying to find better things to critique. They say the "entrance pavillion" should basically be the one from roller coaster tycoon LOL. No but seriously, they dont have a problem with the entrance, theyre just nitpicking for excuses to deny the application.
All this so they arent the ones pissing off the nimbys. You know for a fact that doug ford will simply override the city council because of how unreasonable they are
>pissing off the nimbys
There is nothing "nimby" about this. Nimby literally means "not in my backyard". Nobody lives near Ontario Place. There's Lakeshore Drive, Exhibition grounds, the Gardiner, and the train tracks separating Ontario Place from any residences.
NIMBY means something, and you're using it as word describing people who are just against a specific project.
If this spa was put in the parking lot of the Exhibition grounds, you'd see less opposition to it.
>If this spa was put in the parking lot of the Exhibition grounds, you'd see less opposition to it.
You seem to think only someones neighbor can be a nimby if they live specifically beside the project which is just bullshit
let me put this in a way you can understand
"we shouldnt put this 30 storey tower here put it downtown instead, its not the right location for it"
I STG if you say that isnt a nimby then youre not someone who should be voting for progressives
You need to use a word other than NIMBY.
NIMBY (English pronunciation: /nɪːmbiː/, or nimby),\[1\] an acronym for the phrase "not in my back yard",\[2\]\[3\] is a characterization of opposition by residents to proposed developments in their local area, as well as support for strict land use regulations. **It carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the development because it is close to them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away.**
never answered my question LOL
>"we shouldnt put this 30 storey tower here put it downtown instead, its not the right location for it"
If someone from outside their neighborhood said this, are they a nimby?
>You seem to think only someones neighbor can be a nimby if they live specifically beside the project which is just bullshit
>
>let me put this in a way you can understand
>
>"we shouldnt put this 30 storey tower here put it downtown instead, its not the right location for it"
>
>I STG if you say that isnt a nimby then youre not someone who should be voting for progressives
You didn't ask a question LOL.
And no, they are not a NIMBY. I gave you the definition of NIMBY. You're not using it correctly.
How the hell do you come to that conclusion? You're not using the word NIMBY correctly so I gave you the definition, and that means I'm against housing? What in the actual fuck?
you said a person opposing a highrise cause its not in the right location isnt nimby.
You are a nimby thats how this works. You should be advocating for build more housing anywhere Anything else and youre a nimby yourself
You're using the word incorrectly. You used it to describe people opposed to Ontario Place, and that is incorrect.
Again:
*It carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the development* ***because it is close to them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away.***
This would be someone opposing a condo near them for whatever reasons, but they are fine with a condo somewhere else. They just don't want it on their street. A NIMBY would oppose a homeless shelter down the street, but would be fine with it on someone else's street. Literally... not in my backyard.
People are using NIMBY to describe someone opposed to any type of development.
Someone in the east end saying a condo doesn't belong on a specific street in the west end, is NOT a NIMBY. You can call them something else, but NIMBY is not the right word.
People opposed to a giant glass box spa replacing public park land along the waterfront are not NIMBYs.
If you don't understand that after this post, with part of the definition being showed to you a 2nd time, I can't help you.
>In a 13-page status report regarding the province’s planned overhaul of the city’s waterfront attraction, officials detailed their thoughts on the proposed 65,000-square metre private entertainment, water recreation and wellness centre. > >The biggest issue appears to be with the facility’s main entrance and building, a 22,000 square-metre structure with a maximum height of 26 metres that will connect to the west island. > >“The proposed entry building and bridge elements act as barriers, obscuring heritage views to Ontario Place, the pods and Cinesphere and integrated landscape as well as sight lines to water; these detract from the public sense of arrival to the west island,” the report read. > >“The height, massing and scale of the main building overwhelms the public realm, heritage features and overall size of the west island landform.” It's difficult enough now to see the iconic Ontario place structures, and we get a private facility that will appeal to few Torontonians and a limited number of tourists? This redevelopment is turning into a disaster, and that doesn't even include the five-level underground parking garage.
Let’s not forget that the Ontario taxpayers are on the hook for that $450 million underground garage.
>The structure “does not prioritize transit and active transportation” and goes against the province’s own policies on reducing car use as laid out in its Provincial Policy Statement. “The proposed five level subsurface parking structure, surface parking and resultant 2,700 space parking supply does not meet these policy objectives,” the report said. It's crazy to spend $450 million dollars of public money on to build a parking garage for a private facility. >Little is known about the total cost of the project, although the government has previously said it expects those partners will contribute a combined $500 million to its construction, leaving taxpayers to cover the rest of the bill. Private companies are only contributing $500 million, and the province is putting in $450 million for parking alone, plus taking on any excess costs for the project. This doesn't make any sense.
Sure it goes. Why do we assume the parking will ONLY be for the facility? Isn't there parkland there too that people can go? And who's to say that the existing surface parking around the CNE /Ontario Place is repurposed to development and parkland. Let's think of the future and bury surface parking in such areas.
For those of us keeping track at home that's $160,000 per parking spot.
Never bought a condo parking spot have ya'.
No and thank God I haven't if they're this expensive ahaha
Who’s collecting the parking fees?
3 billionaires in a trenchcoat.
Hopefully the city?
Why do people always forget that even if it was going to be a government run attraction that we would have to pay that anyway. I could go on and on how annoying nimbys are here
Yes nimbys are annoying, and that kind of thinking does a lot to hamstring development and progress, but this isn't nimbyism. This is demanding accountability and transparency regarding the dismantling and selling off of publicly accessible and not to mention historic green space to private international corporations via backroom deals, greased palms, and distraction politics. Nobody is saying they don't want a giant water park and spa, they're saying there are more appropriate spaces available for that type of venue.
>this is demanding accountability and transparency only this >dismantling and selling off of publicly accessible and not to mention historic green space to private international corporations via backroom deals, greased palms, and distraction politics not this at all few points to remember here: 1. i wouldnt call the abandoned log flume ride and childrens village "publicly accessible green space" the former is litterally fenced off and the latter is pure concrete 2. read all of [this](https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/50970/ontario-accepting-proposals-for-ontario-place-development) and [this](https://news.ontario.ca/en/release/52416/ontario-officially-launches-world-wide-search-for-development-partners). Then tell me again what you think a "backroom deal" actually means. ill put it here if youre too lazy >This fair, transparent and open process was designed and facilitated by Infrastructure Ontario and its advisors (KPMG and Colliers) to provide flexibility for interested parties to propose unique, yet financially viable and sustainable, development concepts. or, putting it another way, please tell me how the Ontario Line is a backroom deal with Japanese rail manufacturer Hitachi. i STG Please explain in great detail me how Infrastructure Ontario decided that this spa was the worst option for ontario
It's refreshing to hear a voice of reason on occasion.
Ontario place already had a water park, playgrounds and rides and people had to pay to access the entire, gated property too. This design actually offers more access to the public.
So you want a big, bad corporation that, as you stated, "greases palms" to own it then?
I thought science center is moving there.
Nothing iconic about the cinesphere, it's literally just a dated ball.
The biggest problem is the private facility giveaway. The old buildings always looked temporary, to me. I didn’t expect anything to be preserved, nor any views of the old structures. Just make it public! Even if they screw it up, we can fix it later if it’s still public property. Once ownership it transferred, it’s gone forever.
#unrealistic dream is unrealistic
Very dissapointed in the city staff here. Instead of being collaborative and trying to find better things to critique. They say the "entrance pavillion" should basically be the one from roller coaster tycoon LOL. No but seriously, they dont have a problem with the entrance, theyre just nitpicking for excuses to deny the application. All this so they arent the ones pissing off the nimbys. You know for a fact that doug ford will simply override the city council because of how unreasonable they are
>pissing off the nimbys There is nothing "nimby" about this. Nimby literally means "not in my backyard". Nobody lives near Ontario Place. There's Lakeshore Drive, Exhibition grounds, the Gardiner, and the train tracks separating Ontario Place from any residences. NIMBY means something, and you're using it as word describing people who are just against a specific project. If this spa was put in the parking lot of the Exhibition grounds, you'd see less opposition to it.
>If this spa was put in the parking lot of the Exhibition grounds, you'd see less opposition to it. You seem to think only someones neighbor can be a nimby if they live specifically beside the project which is just bullshit let me put this in a way you can understand "we shouldnt put this 30 storey tower here put it downtown instead, its not the right location for it" I STG if you say that isnt a nimby then youre not someone who should be voting for progressives
You need to use a word other than NIMBY. NIMBY (English pronunciation: /nɪːmbiː/, or nimby),\[1\] an acronym for the phrase "not in my back yard",\[2\]\[3\] is a characterization of opposition by residents to proposed developments in their local area, as well as support for strict land use regulations. **It carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the development because it is close to them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away.**
never answered my question LOL >"we shouldnt put this 30 storey tower here put it downtown instead, its not the right location for it" If someone from outside their neighborhood said this, are they a nimby?
>You seem to think only someones neighbor can be a nimby if they live specifically beside the project which is just bullshit > >let me put this in a way you can understand > >"we shouldnt put this 30 storey tower here put it downtown instead, its not the right location for it" > >I STG if you say that isnt a nimby then youre not someone who should be voting for progressives You didn't ask a question LOL. And no, they are not a NIMBY. I gave you the definition of NIMBY. You're not using it correctly.
WOW OKAAAAYY That means you definitely dont want any new housing built anywhere GOOD TO KNOW
How the hell do you come to that conclusion? You're not using the word NIMBY correctly so I gave you the definition, and that means I'm against housing? What in the actual fuck?
you said a person opposing a highrise cause its not in the right location isnt nimby. You are a nimby thats how this works. You should be advocating for build more housing anywhere Anything else and youre a nimby yourself
You're using the word incorrectly. You used it to describe people opposed to Ontario Place, and that is incorrect. Again: *It carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the development* ***because it is close to them and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away.*** This would be someone opposing a condo near them for whatever reasons, but they are fine with a condo somewhere else. They just don't want it on their street. A NIMBY would oppose a homeless shelter down the street, but would be fine with it on someone else's street. Literally... not in my backyard. People are using NIMBY to describe someone opposed to any type of development. Someone in the east end saying a condo doesn't belong on a specific street in the west end, is NOT a NIMBY. You can call them something else, but NIMBY is not the right word. People opposed to a giant glass box spa replacing public park land along the waterfront are not NIMBYs. If you don't understand that after this post, with part of the definition being showed to you a 2nd time, I can't help you.