Canada Lands Company enters into lease agreement with Ripley Entertainment, Inc. to build 150,000-square foot facility at the foot of CN Tower

http://beta.images.theglobeandmail.com/archive/00420/Aquarium__420002gm-a.jpg

A new 150,000-square foot aquarium could be coming to the foot of the CN Tower.

If approved by city planners, the aquarium would be a major addition to Toronto's waterfront and the first brand new tourism attraction to open in the city in years, said Gordon McIvor, the vice-president of the Canada Lands Company, the Crown corporation which owns the CN Tower and the five-acre plot on which the aquarium would be located.

Canada Lands has entered into a long-term lease agreement with Ripley Entertainment, Inc. to build and operate the aquarium.

“The site is great, it's right in the tourism hub,” said Tim O'Brien, the vice-president of communications for Ripley, famous for its “Believe-It-Or-Not” franchise but also the operators of two major U.S. aquariums. “The location is magnificent for us.”

Mr. O'Brien said it's too early to say what species of sea life the aquarium would feature. The company and Canada Lands are waiting to see how much of their proposal survives the city re-zoning process that is about to get officially under way at a community council meeting next Tuesday.

However, Mr. O'Brien said he is “comfortable” the project will go ahead. Mr. McIvor and Mr. O'Brien said they would like to see the first phase of the aquarium open in three years.

According to a report to the Toronto and East York Community Council, the proposed development would include the aquarium on the lands west of the CN Tower, next to the Metro Toronto Convention Centre, and a 47,000-square-foot retail and restaurant complex on the east side of the tower.

The aquarium would open in two phases: A first phase of approximately 96,000 square feet and a second phase of about 54,000 square feet.

Mr. McIvor praised the project a potential boon for Toronto's shoreline. “This will enhance all of the businesses in the waterfront area,” he said.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/downtown-aquarium-planned-for-toronto/article1421161/

Interesting to hear this area referred to as the "shoreline."

I'm in favour of anything that may be of interest for tourism, but I am personally not usually attracted to Aquariums.

Plans to make big splash with aquarium at CN Tower
Paul Moloney city hall bureau
Published On Wed Jan 06 2010

http://i48.tinypic.com/20qknyr.jpg

A proposal from the Ripley's Believe It Or Not people for an aquarium at the base of the CN Tower.

A major aquarium is being planned at the base of the CN Tower.

The facility is proposed by Ripley Entertainment, best known for their Ripley's Believe It or Not attractions, which has aquariums in Myrtle Beach, S.C. and Gatlinburg, Tenn. The company looked at Exhibition Place as a site several years ago but felt the CN Tower, with its two million visitors annually, would be a better site for the massive project.

"It's big," said Gordon McIvor, vice-president of Canada Lands Company, the federal agency which owns the tower and the three acres of vacant land at its base.

Last year, Canada Lands sought development proposals and settled on Ripley, based in Orlando, Fla.

"The CN Tower is statistically the most trafficked man-made tourist facility in Canada," McIvor said. "You've got a built-in international audience as well as a lot of schoolchildren. Obviously, an aquarium has a huge academic audience."

Ripley's proposed development would see an aquarium encompassing 193,750 square feet on the east side of the tower and a 50,000-square-foot retail and restaurant complex on the west side.

The proposal has been filed with the city, and politicians will begin reviewing the plans at next week's meeting of the Toronto and East York community council.

"We've always wanted to bring a world-class aquarium to Toronto," said Ripley spokesperson Tim O'Brien. "This is a great opportunity for us. We love the Canadian market. We feel very confident that we will get over the hurdles we need to overcome and get this project started."

Canada Lands would lease the land to Ripley, McIvor said.

"Basically, we view this as a very effective way to stimulate the local economy with a huge new infrastructure project," he said. "Building an aquarium on under-utilized land at the base of the CN Tower is going to create jobs in the local tourism sector and spur increased visitors to the city's other attractions, and the hotels and restaurants."

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/746937--plans-to-make-big-splash-with-aquarium-at-cn-tower?bn=1

How big is the one in Atlanta that Home Depot built?

Hmmm, how about they build a giant indoor beach, like the one in Berlin and fill it with whales of the human variety instead.

How big is the one in Atlanta that Home Depot built?

Absolutely huge but also very crowded both with visitors and with unhealthy fish. If they cut back on the fish count by about 50% it would probably be pretty good but then they couldn't boast having thousands of fish in their main tank.

The best aquarium I've visited, and one to model after, is Seattle's. Pretty healthy fish, even in the petting tanks, and knowledgeable staff. Even their octopods seem pretty happy and they're very difficult to keep simply because they get bored easily.

If this one keeps the fish healthy (they should/can live much longer in an aquarium than in the wild but often they die of disease which they shouldn't get), then I will probably become a member of Toronto's.

If you compare aquariums in the US, I think the Ripley's ones are of lower quality. They are not educational institutions, they are more about entertainment, not serious aquariums. The architecture and quality on Ripley's is seriously lacking.

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/8303/aquariums2.jpg
By torontovibe (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/torontovibe) at 2010-01-07

http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/3453/aquariums1n.jpg
By torontovibe (http://profile.imageshack.us/user/torontovibe) at 2010-01-07


I'd rather see it built on the waterfront and be built by a different company. I say wait for something better, not take a second rate aquarium. This is TORONTO, not Gatlinburg. lol The 5th largest city in North America deserves something much better. I say put it in Ontario Place and make it a year round attraction. (Or the East Bayfront, with an iconic design to match. Yes, I know, I'm dreaming! lol)

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/746937--plans-to-make-big-splash-with-aquarium-at-cn-tower?bn=1

Take away that glass wall and that thing looks like a hockey arena in Scarborough. It will destroy any hope for Bremner street developing into a great walking street, with that big, concrete wall facing the street. It's actually an ugly building and we all know, it can also get worse. (with experience seeing how renderings turn out in reality)

I wish there could be a slick little row of cafes with large patios and a wide sidewalk along that part of Bremner. It could be the new South Financial District's cafe/bar strip. It would benefit CityPlace and the whole area.

Then I'd be completely fine with the aquarium idea.

Anyone else agree with this idea?

I suspect that the architecture will somehow be appropriate to Toronto. I've been to the one in Gatlinburg and it's pretty neat.

If what Mollywood said is true, then we dont want this. Better to hold out for a better more educational experience. Something for all the school kids to go to, and hopefully it would work with one of the universitys to make a program that specialized in aquatic stuff so we can enter that field and help innovate.

And no whales! The Atlanta Aquarium is disgusting.

Yeah... I think what we need is a "grand" experience. Nothing cheesy or aimed at people who just want spectacle.

But rather something that has spectacle intertwined into an educational experience.

Yeah... I think what we need is a "grand" experience. Nothing cheesy or aimed at people who just want spectacle.

But rather something that has spectacle intertwined into an educational experience.

Ripley's aquariums appear to be aimed towards kids. If you go see their web site, it looks like it's mainly for the young ones and not really geared to adults. (More fun than educational) Hell, they have a weeky wocky mermaid show. What kind of serious aquarium has a Weeky Wocky, underwater mermaid show? I think they are from a Florida amusement park, for god's sake. lol I think it's more cute and fun, than educational.

I hope I'm wrong and it turns out to be a great quality attraction but I just have the feeling it will be of a lower quality than I'd like to see. (or downright crappy) I'm hoping the city might make some demands on them and force things like a better design and a green roof or retail/restaurants along Bremner. I agree, if they had a few coffee shops/restaurants along there, it would be much more people friendly. (especially beside the convention centre) Didn't the city pass a law making green roofs mandatory on all new buildings? I hope it happens to this ugly mass of concrete.

Ripley's aquariums appear to be aimed towards kids. If you go see their web site, it looks like it's mainly for the young ones and not really geared to adults. (More fun than educational) Hell, they have a weeky wocky mermaid show. What kind of serious aquarium has a Weeky Wocky, underwater mermaid show? I think they are from a Florida amusement park, for god's sake. lol I think it's more cute and fun, than educational.

I hope I'm wrong and it turns out to be a great quality attraction but I just have the feeling it will be of a lower quality than I'd like to see. (or downright crappy) I'm hoping the city might make some demands on them and force things like a better design and a green roof or retail/restaurants along Bremner. I agree, if they had a few coffee shops/restaurants along there, it would be much more people friendly. (especially beside the convention centre) Didn't the city pass a law making green roofs mandatory on all new buildings? I hope it happens to this ugly mass of concrete.

Ive been to Shedd Aquarium in Chicago twice, and the Vancouver Aquarium and both felt like they were geared to kids. And guess what?! The majority of the people in both WERE kids. Aquariums are always going to be geared to kids as they are the main group of visitors. From the picture above, the Ripley Aquarium looks no different than the Georgia Aquarium, minus the architecture... but the early renderings of what we will be getting look nothing like the Ripley Aquariums that already exist.

Well, from what I saw in today's Star it doesn't look so bad. That is currently one ugly no man's land at the foot of the tower. These are just photos I took of what was in the Toronto Star, so please forgive the quality. The first one sort of looks like a Concord jet:

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202008/Winter%20Part%20Two%202009/Late%20Summer%20Early%20Fall%202009/IMGP9764.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202008/Winter%20Part%20Two%202009/Late%20Summer%20Early%20Fall%202009/IMGP9765.jpg

And, there is absolutely no question these aquarium things are aimed at kids and families. Seems a good match with the CN Tower, to me.

Looks good. I wish they would change the font of their logo though. It seems to look quite childish - sort of like the comic sans font.

150,000 sq foot is huge!!

150,000 sq foot is huge!!

It will be 5th largest in North America according to some UT'ers. Not bad!

Absolutely huge but also very crowded both with visitors and with unhealthy fish. If they cut back on the fish count by about 50% it would probably be pretty good but then they couldn't boast having thousands of fish in their main tank.

The best aquarium I've visited, and one to model after, is Seattle's. Pretty healthy fish, even in the petting tanks, and knowledgeable staff. Even their octopods seem pretty happy and they're very difficult to keep simply because they get bored easily.

If this one keeps the fish healthy (they should/can live much longer in an aquarium than in the wild but often they die of disease which they shouldn't get), then I will probably become a member of Toronto's.

Size isn't everything I suppose. Besides healthy fish, what design features make for a great aquarium experience? It's important that this become a profitable venture and not ever need subsidy.

This does seem like an ideal location for an aquarium. I suppose the new 37 floor Fairmont Hotel will be going up right next to this.

Hope the design review panel does their job on this one... but otherwise i approve

Looks good. I wish they would change the font of their logo though. It seems to look quite childish - sort of like the comic sans font.

I agree that it looks a bit childish, but this has been the Ripley's "signature" logo since the 1930's, so I understand their desire to keep it. I just wish they made it smaller. I love the name "Aquarium of Canada" though.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii108/jasonzedd/Mississauga-3a/20100110044.jpg

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii108/jasonzedd/Mississauga-3a/20100110045.jpg

Soon this will all look very different!

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202008/Winter%20Part%20Two%202009/Late%20Summer%20Early%20Fall%202009/IMGP9767.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202008/Winter%20Part%20Two%202009/Late%20Summer%20Early%20Fall%202009/IMGP9768.jpg

^^

And hopefully the city will take a good look at this proposal and make sure the design fits into the area. I'd like to see a few design changes, so if the cities design review panel does it's job, we might get something half decent. I don't have the highest expectations but you never know, maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised. If anything, it should help to make Bremner a lively, tourist magnet.

The area already is a hugely successful tourist magnet because of the CN Tower, and I can't imagine that an Aquarium will do anything but add to the draw. The physical appearance of the Aquarium is important to us, but it will undoubtedly be a big tourist attraction.

Rendering in the Star that T,B posted looks pretty awesome.

Atlanta's is 550,000 square feet (vs 150,000 for this one).

I understand that we want a spectacular world class attraction, but unless someone else is proposing a development at this location, let's not put too many barriers in the way to scare Ripley from building this facility. Like the Globe and Mail article said , "...and the first brand new tourism attraction to open in the city in years", there is no lineup of developers or proposals that we can sit and pick and choose from. In addition, that location definitely needs another attraction to complement riding up and down the CN tower.

That being said, we do not want an eyesore either at this very prominent locale in TO. Maybe insisting on "voluntary" submission to an architectural review committee like was done with Aura, or an architectural panel appointed by the city like is done in Vancouver would be appropriate before approval is contemplated for all major projects as this.

This area needs a Beer Garden!!

Well, it has Steamwhistle, and I make good use of that particular tourist attraction!

It does have Steamwhistle, which would make it all the more easy to construct a beer garden for those warm summer afternoons and evenings around this area; it would definitely keep the area popular and well attended :)

This all looks very promising. Divided into 2 phases:

Phase I -- 9 000 sq m
Phase II -- 5 000 sq m
Total: 14 000 sq m = 150 000 sq ft

(Phase IIa -- 4 400 sq m CN Tower retail pavilion abutting Rogers Centre)

Staff report with renders, courtesy of waterloowarrior on UT: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-31090.pdf

Size comparison (p*ssing contest), as per interchange42 on UT:

1. Atlanta = 550 000 sq ft
2. Chicago = 422 000 sq ft
3. Monterey Bay = 322 000 sq ft
4. Baltimore = 273 500 sq ft
5. Tampa Bay = 250 000 sq ft
6. Long Beach = 157 000 sq ft
7. Toronto (Ripley's) = 150 000 sq ft
8. Gatlinburg (Ripley's) = 115 000 sq ft
9. Vancouver = 100 000 sq ft
10. Myrtle Beach (Ripley's) = 85 000 sq ft
11. Newport = 80 000 sq ft
12. Boston = 74 000 sq ft
13. San Francisco = 65 000 sq ft
14. Seattle = 50 000 sq ft

As per bAuHaUs on UT, "this morning community council approved staff recommendations regarding the OP & zoning by-law amendments. Not one public deputation though. The final step is City Council's blessing on July 7 / 8."

The promoters are patiently awaiting a "go" on the project. I've chatted with some of them about it.

Is this right next to roundhouse park? Or will they have to relocate sections elsewhere?

And damn, Atlanta's aquarium is monstrous! I never even realized.

Rendering in the Star that T,B posted looks pretty awesome.

Atlanta's is 550,000 square feet (vs 150,000 for this one).

I understand that we want a spectacular world class attraction, but unless someone else is proposing a development at this location, let's not put too many barriers in the way to scare Ripley from building this facility. Like the Globe and Mail article said , "...and the first brand new tourism attraction to open in the city in years", there is no lineup of developers or proposals that we can sit and pick and choose from. In addition, that location definitely needs another attraction to complement riding up and down the CN tower.

That being said, we do not want an eyesore either at this very prominent locale in TO. Maybe insisting on "voluntary" submission to an architectural review committee like was done with Aura, or an architectural panel appointed by the city like is done in Vancouver would be appropriate before approval is contemplated for all major projects as this.

Totally agree. It's only natural that the area should be home to further tourist attractions. The proposed site plan seems to strand the CN tower inside some kind of internal courtyard though. Wish there was another sightline/ public space cutting diagonally across the aquarium footprint to meet with the CN tower, if only to make the site strategy more porous along Bremmer.

Have you been to the one in Vancouver? Is 150,000 square feet large enough to make this a big draw and successful? I realize that a 550,000 square footer like Atlanta's won't happen, but the last thing we need is an expensive facility that doesn't have enough stuff in it to get people through the turnstiles.

If we're to build an aquarium, let's do it right. We're certainly not going to build a second one if we get the first one wrong.

Bostons is only half the size and attracts 1.5million people a year.

http://www.neaq.org/animals_and_exhibits/index.php

Would they get more, if it were bigger or are there other characteristics that are more important in an aquarium as far as attendance goes?

Would they get more, if it were bigger or are there other characteristics that are more important in an aquarium as far as attendance goes?

Let's look at this from another angle:

If Boston has 1.5 million visits at 75K, Toronto would need 3 million at 150K to have the same attendance per square foot.

If these sorts of attractions scale linearly with size (which is not far fetched - while there is overhead, but I would imagine that significant cost is driven by tank volume and aquatic population).

Can we get 3 million people in there each year? No idea.

I would expect phase one to proceed, and it would need to be a roaring success before phase two gets commitment.

I don't think they necessarily double the requirement of visitors annually by making it larger. 1.5 million visitors per year is a HUGE attraction, and no doubt they would be thrilled to get that number here. As beautiful as Boston is, and I do love it, aside from the historical architecture there really aren't a lot of "contemporary" attractions to visit, thus I wouldn't be surprised if it were the main attraction in the city aside from Faneuil Hall, etc...

I don't think they necessarily double the requirement of visitors annually by making it larger. 1.5 million visitors per year is a HUGE attraction, and no doubt they would be thrilled to get that number here. As beautiful as Boston is, and I do love it, aside from the historical architecture there really aren't a lot of "contemporary" attractions to visit, thus I wouldn't be surprised if it were the main attraction in the city aside from Faneuil Hall, etc...

OK TB, put on your capitalist hat. :)

Let's confirm: You are telling me that as a capitalist, you would build a larger facility, even though you would get the same number of people with a smaller, more affordable facility?

The Vancouver Aquarium seemed rather small to me. There really wasn't a whole lot to see, you can see it all in an hour. I much preferred the one in Baltimore. It seemed a lot larger and better designed.

OK TB, put on your capitalist hat. :)

Let's confirm: You are telling me that as a capitalist, you would build a larger facility, even though you would get the same number of people with a smaller, more affordable facility?

Well, I'm no Captain of Commerce and Industry, but I would imagine that it rather depends on how much you charge each person to get in, and what is the margin of profit for this type of business. The CN Tower manages to squeeze by on 1.7 million tourists, annually. Believe it or Not, I sincerely doubt Ripley's could ever draw twice what the CN Tower does... :D

Have you been to the one in Vancouver? Is 150,000 square feet large enough to make this a big draw and successful? I realize that a 550,000 square footer like Atlanta's won't happen, but the last thing we need is an expensive facility that doesn't have enough stuff in it to get people through the turnstiles.

I've been there once many years ago... I was never interested in the exhibits, but hung out w/ frds around the outdoor amphiteatres, which had a really cozy feel. Part of it might be the fact that the place is really old and covered in ivy (3rd oldest in North America after the Chicago and SF aquariums), and it came long before the recent wave of shiny completely-internalized complexes.

fyi, a $120 million expansion is currently underway to increase the total area to about 160,000 SF, roughly the same size as the one at long beach, which as 1.5 million visitors. Dunno the attendance stats for vancouver's.

The Atlanta one looks like ridiculous sitting in the middle of a landlocked superblock of asphalt and parkades. I mean, at least put in some water features! I hope Toronto's will be much more grounded to its site and less corporate-looking than the atlanta one. Too bad it's not quite on the waterfront; otherwise it'll be cool to have the underwater spaces intermingle with the harbour like the aquarium in Barcelona.

It's going beside the CN Tower, tourist central, it will be busy. The CN Tower pulls in about 2 million visitors a year so this aquarium will also draw from that crowd. I for one can see myself going a few times a year, there is something calming about underwater life. Can't wait to escape the winter for a few hours each year in there.


u7deClndzQw

I know it is wrong of me, but everytime I see photos like that I imagine the glass wall imploding....

^^ Stranger things have happened....
ioyWaLWS8wA

I'm absolutely opposed to putting rays and sharks in aquariums.

I'm only opposed to mammels and if the tank's not big enough then maybe large fish. They should also just be fish that are raised from egg.

Have you been to the one in Vancouver? Is 150,000 square feet large enough to make this a big draw and successful? I realize that a 550,000 square footer like Atlanta's won't happen, but the last thing we need is an expensive facility that doesn't have enough stuff in it to get people through the turnstiles.

If we're to build an aquarium, let's do it right. We're certainly not going to build a second one if we get the first one wrong.

Vancouver Aquarium is actually about to embark on a major expansion that would add close to 70,000 square feet in space for a total area of about 160,000 square feet. The annual attendance is 1-million, and it's Canada's first and oldest aquarium (more than 50 years). In fact, the Vancouver Aquarium is why orca whales are now held in captivity - it was the first to have one in a tank and end the tales of killer whales being vicious like sharks.

It's great to see how Toronto seems to be so open minded with its attractions, building attractions for all types of interests, whereas those who run things in Vancouver seem to lack a vision or even imagination. Anything seen as a "big city attraction" like a London-eye type of ferris wheel, observation tower, or even a better amusement park is a big no to them. They have a selfish and narrow minded desire of creating attractions that would fit a certain "niche".

The proposed Toronto aquarium is plenty large and fits the site perfectly. Any larger probably wouldn't be in the best interest of the animals and fish....

Toronto is far away from the oceans, so it will be really good and useful to have a big and nice aquarium,
but for me the architecture matters more than the size.
It will be nice if Toronto's landmark has a nice piece of architecture right next to it.

I'm only opposed to mammels and if the tank's not big enough then maybe large fish. They should also just be fish that are raised from egg.

Maybe we'll get the first giant squid in captivity :banana:

Or Nessie!!!

I'm only opposed to mammels and if the tank's not big enough then maybe large fish. They should also just be fish that are raised from egg.

Well, that would eliminate many shark species and possibly some types of rays.

Double post

Or Nessie!!!For occasional appearances only.

The in-house monsters will be Ogopogo from the Okanagan, and that mysterious monster lake monster from Quebec.

Cheers, m

What about a massive habitat for these?

http://wok3.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/seamonkeys.jpg

Posted by bAuHaUs on UT.

City council yesterday approved the Final Report regarding the aquarium application; the applicant now has the planning permission to proceed (notwithstanding final site plan/design approval).


Dancing banana!!!

I know some people who are going to be breathing a sigh of relief over this news!! :okay:

By AlvinofDiaspar on UT.

Details re: Public Art from TEYCC Aug 17 Meeting:

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-32554.pdf


By Mongo on UT.

Images from the above pdf:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mongo62aa/Ripleys1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mongo62aa/Ripleys2.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mongo62aa/Ripleys3.jpg

This is going to be amazing! :banana:

Toronto Star article:

Details of Toronto’s Aquarium Are Massive
February 03, 2011

David Rider

http://media.thestar.topscms.com/images/59/d4/efff9046408ca92ddd6c32b16ebb.jpegB+H Architects
An artist's conception of the 150,000-square-foot aquarium that would be built at the base of the CN Tower by July 2015.

Some bait from taxpayers will help lure tens of thousands of fish — and millions of visitors — to the aquarium planned for the base of the CN Tower, the Star has learned.

Approvals and design work for a long-sought aquarium have gone swimmingly since details were announced a year ago, say Ripley’s Entertainment, the City of Toronto and the federal Crown corporation that controls the three-acre parcel of land just south of the tower.

Contracts could be signed as early as this summer, triggering construction to get the 150,000-square-foot watery attraction —Toronto’s first big new tourist magnet since the Hockey Hall of Fame almost 20 years ago — ready for July 2015, when visitors will stream into Pan Am Games events at the neighbouring Rogers Centre.

“I’m optimistic” there won’t be any snags, said Jim Pattison Jr., president of Orlando-based Ripley’s, a division of his billionaire father’s Vancouver-based The Jim Pattison Group.

“There will be tens of thousands of different (marine) animals, and some features that will be unique to Toronto,” Pattison added, including a moving walkway taking visitors through “the largest underwater tunnel in North America,” with fish, possibly including sharks, all around them.

Councillor Adam Vaughan, who believes the aquarium will enhance John St. redevelopment, said he was told there will also be a room with tanks of live jellyfish, special lighting and mirrors to create a “psychedelic visual experience.”

But taxpayers will swallow some of the costs.

A source with knowledge of the plans said various levels of government are expected to contribute about $10 million each to the project, with Ripley’s investing $110 million — a figure Pattison would not confirm.

Mike Williams, the city’s manager of economic development, confirmed the aquarium is approved for an incentive program that lets commercial and industrial corporations forgo a percentage of property taxes for 10 years.

How much that saves Ripley’s won’t be known until the value of the developed property is set, he said, but $10 million “could be in the ballpark.”

“This is a fabulous project” that will draw tourists from near and far, as well as school groups and other Toronto visitors, and keep them in the area spending money longer, he said.

While declining to confirm or deny that the Ontario government is investing in the aquarium, Mukunthan Paramalingham, a spokesman for Tourism Minister Michael Chan, said in an email: “The arrival of an aquarium of this calibre will bring in millions of visitors, fill our hotels, and create jobs.

“It will provide great educational opportunities for visitors of all ages while ensuring that everyone gets a chance to see that Ontario is a great place to live, visit and invest.”

While the source said Ottawa is expected to also contribute $10 million, a vice-president of Canada Lands Co., the federal agency in negotiations to lease the land to Ripley’s, said he knew of no such contribution.

Gordon McIvor said, though, that Ottawa will spend money on landscaping, signs and other features to dramatically improve the John St., Front St. and Bremner Blvd. entrances to the tower/aquarium site.

“This is an extraordinarily important project for keeping Toronto vibrant” and will give a boost to the tower’s visitors — almost 2 million annually — and help draw conferences to the neighbouring, federally owned Metro Toronto Convention Centre, he said.

Vaughan said Mayor Rob Ford’s office has been supportive of the project that was started under Ford’s predecessor, David Miller.

“The mayor’s office wanted to insist the aquarium have parking, but Ripley’s said it chose the site because of the (pedestrian and transit) options, and parking made the project not financially viable. The requirement was waived.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/932475

I love how the Mayors office insisted on parking but was shot down.

From Adam Vaughan's June newsletter:

Construction Notice: Skywalk Closure Railway Lands/CityPlace
____________________

In July 2011, construction will begin on the Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada, which will be located at the base of the CN Tower.

Every effort has been made to minimize the impact of construction on the neighbourhood; however, for the period of July 2011 – July 2013, the construction crew must close the western exit of SkyWalk, the pedestrian connection between the CN Tower / Rogers Centre neighbourhood and Union Station, the TTC and GO Transit. Access between these two areas will still be possible and facilitated by a signed detour. See the map below for further details. (map available in PDF version)

The planned construction completion date is the summer of 2013. Once construction is complete, Ripley's Aquarium of Canada will be restoring the pedestrian connection via the SkyWalk.

Excellent! I am excited to see this one built....

^^ Same here! This is the most beneficial project for the city.

this will be awesome to see when finished.. i can't wait! i think that is hilarious that the city wanted parking.... lol. just goes to show how suburban oriented ford is.

Parking would have been underground though right? I can't fathom a surface lot.

It's a rather random building .. yes on it own, in a field it's nice .. but it doesn't pay any homage to the cn tower or skydome.

Typical Toronto Architect living in their own ego bubble.

.. no wonder why architects blur out the background.

Pay homage to the CN Tower and Skydome? What, like a concrete bunker?

It's a rather random building .. yes on it own, in a field it's nice .. but it doesn't pay any homage to the cn tower or skydome.

Typical Toronto Architect living in their own ego bubble.


I agree, I'm not a huge fan of the design but maybe we'll see some new elevations that will change our minds.

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii108/jasonzedd/Toronto/20110724a079.jpg

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii108/jasonzedd/Toronto/20110724a078.jpg

Pay homage to the CN Tower and Skydome? What, like a concrete bunker?

:lol: Maybe a fake little spire on top, shaped like the top of the CN Tower.

^ that picture got me excited about this project..
hope it turns out great!

I like it too, and think it will fit in well down by the CN Tower.

Maybe we can put Rob Ford in here once he's gone in 2014.

Maybe we can put Rob Ford in here once he's gone in 2014.

Are you people going to whine about this for four years ?

Are you people going to whine about this for four years ?

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/7/30/128934444683333559.jpg

^^ :lol::lol:

ZING!

Wow, that is a great location and a large swath of land! Happy this is going through. Our city will be taller and greater by 2015 when PanAm arrives!

Are you people going to whine about this for four years ?

We have no choice; unless some miracle happens we are stuck with a coterie of idiots running the show.

Are you people going to whine about this for four years ?

Are you new to SSC or even Toronto? That's what we people do, get used to it. If it's not Ford or high taxes or bike lanes or the weather or building heights or the Leafs or, complaining about complaining or did I mention the weather?

It ain't gonna change, so I guess you gotta just deal with it. We will bitch about Ford for years after he is long gone, just like we do about evil Harris and sideshow Smitherman.

Now, let's get back to the Ford bashing :bash: because it's just so damned easy. (and way too much fun) :banana:

Are you new to SSC or even Toronto? That's what we people do, get used to it. If it's not Ford or high taxes or bike lanes or the weather or building heights or the Leafs or, complaining about complaining or did I mention the weather?

It ain't gonna change, so I guess you gotta just deal with it. We will bitch about Ford for years after he is long gone, just like we do about evil Harris and sideshow Smitherman.

Now, let's get back to the Ford bashing :bash: because it's just so damned easy. (and way too much fun) :banana:

Hell, don't be anything other than a Torontonian on my account. I was just afraid that you folks were going to out-do yourselves.

You needn't worry about us, Dale! You folks down there have your hands full of political problems at the moment that make Ford look like the small potatoes he is.

That's how I look at it too. Things could be so much worse. A term in office will be over before you know it.

Ripley will be advertising pretty heavily for this new attraction, which will be good for drawing in visitors from the northern states.

Walking home from Caribana, I walked along Bremner and that street was loaded with tourists in all directions. It reminded me of how crowded NYC was at Memorial Weekend. It would be great if Toronto was full of tourists, like that, every day. The atmosphere was quite festive.

I'm sure Ripley's will do quite well in that location. I just hope our waterfront gets a few big attractions as well. I'd like to see more of a tourism/fun aspect to our waterfront. The new Canada Square is another opportunity to build on that.

I can think of 4 or 5 good waterfront locations that could be used for an iconic museum or tourist type attraction. I hope that huge parking lot on Queen's Quay, right in front of Skydome, is the first to go. A nice 4 level building would be high enough to block out the Gardiner but still leave most of Skydome in clear view. We need to maintain the iconic view of Skydome, on our waterfront.

You needn't worry about us, Dale! You folks down there have your hands full of political problems at the moment that make Ford look like the small potatoes he is.

We're good now. You're still dealing with your teabaggers. ;)

I'll let you in on a little secret... everyone and their dog knew they would reach a last minute agreement; but not before a bit of good old fashioned melodrama and all-day-all-night CNN coverage for a week or two! :lol:

When I think of Teabaggers I think of that awful Soccer Mom from Alaska with the ghastly fashion glasses.

Considering that this is going to be built in Toronto, I'd imagine that this aquarium is also going to be used for educational purposes much like the Georgia Aquarium with it's local universities.

It seems to be a no brainer; the other Ripley's aquariums are located in places that... Well, really doesn't clome close to the other cities that have aquariums, Myrtle Beach, SC only has a population of 31,000 and doesn't have the kind of educational institutions that would make children say "I want to go there for college!"; it's even more evident with the other aquarium that's located in Gatlinburg, TN... Which is really an odd choice as A) It only boasts a population of 4,000 and is more like a resort town, and B) It's more known for being an important tourist spot for the state of tennessee, being the only ski resort in the state, and having the famous "Dollywood" and "Dollywood's Splash Country".

Toronto is a city with quite a few university's, and I'm betting they all want to jump on to this in order to attract more students in this new area of research they're going into.

That's how I look at it too. Things could be so much worse. A term in office will be over before you know it.

That is what I thought about George W. Bush.

Same could happen here - we are surrounded by stupid people, and cheese-eaters.

And then we have this George Mammal-iti with his insane communist comments today. These guys are getting bolder and bolder.

Our current situation really is becoming sad.

No gravy in sight.

A mayor who gives people the finger.

A councilor who wants to have brothels, oh, and has a manufactured consent Facebook page where he deletes the comments of people who disagree with him (because they are communists).

A brother who acts like he is mayor, and can't pronounce LIBRARY (was pronouncnig it "LIB-BER-EEE").

Death threats.

Millions of dollars wasted on cancelling deals, removing bike lanes, etc.

construction progress:

http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac197/innsertnamehere/DSCN0997.jpg

http://www.blogto.com/city/2011/08/ripleys_releases_more_details_about_toronto_aquarium/

(Some renderings of the interior available on the link)

Ripley's releases more details about Toronto Aquarium

Posted by Derek Flack / AUGUST 17, 2011

Expected to be finished in 2013, the $130-million attraction will receive funding from all three levels of government, including $11-million from the province of Ontario and between $8- to $12 million from the City of Toronto in the form of property tax incentives over a 12-year period. The Canada Lands company, who owns the land on which the aquarium is being built, will also kick in "more than $10 million to redevelop the John Street corridor that includes new signage and improved access which will increase and enhance the flow of pedestrian traffic from Front Street," according to a press release issued today.

Among the aquarium's many features, it'll include a 96-metre-long moving walkway through a see-through tunnel that runs below the so-called shark lagoon, which will be inhabited by sand tiger sharks but no great whites (sorry Jaws fans). Although it won't start out fully stocked, the 5.7 million litre attraction will be able to accommodate 13,500 sea creatures, or about 450 total species. Ripley's also plans to implement breeding and conservation programs for endangered species, which will include a tag and track program for sand tiger sharks.

Highlights from today's announcement (from press release)

-The Aquarium will be one of the largest in North America, with a capacity of 5.7-million litres (1.5-million gallons)
-The main exhibition space will include a tropical reef tank, along with Great Lakes exhibits and Atlantic and Pacific habitats
-It will also feature aquatic life-support systems with special recovery basins that reclaim, clean and re-use water;
-Marine and freshwater science education and conservation programs designed to build understanding of the aquatic world
-Trained educators throughout the facility to answer questions and point out special areas of interest
-Aquarium construction is projected to create more than 600 jobs, generating an immediate economic impact of more than $50 million, $35 million of which will be labour income. In addition, during the two-year construction timeline the project is forecasted to generate more than $25 million in taxes for all three levels of government;
-When operational, the Aquarium will generate 300 to 350 jobs and have a projected annual economic impact of more than $35 million on GDP;
-During the first 20 years of operation, the Aquarium is expected to generate more than $220 million in tax revenues for all three levels of government.
-The Aquarium will be open 365-days-a-year, starting in the summer of 2013

The most exciting feature will be the daily Ford family underwater show.

http://www.**************/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/wal-mart-underwater-500x375.jpg

Actually, I'm looking forward to the Great Lakes Habitat. Most people don't realize just how diverse the aquatic life is in our little lakes.

http://cache2.allpostersimages.com/p/LRG/8/850/ODTY000Z/posters/great-lakes-sportman-s-game-fish.jpg

Hopefully we get some fresh water sturgeons. Those things are huge.

I wonder whether they'll also have a top notch seafood restaurant inside the building.

construction progress:

http://i899.photobucket.com/albums/ac197/innsertnamehere/DSCN0997.jpg

Fook; already? Wow that was a hell of alot quicker then I expected, I thought the construction would be next year :eek:

^and that was 2 days before the official announcement, which was yesterday.

If we lobby for it, do you think they might bring back the King and Queen show from out of retirement?

http://i200.photobucket.com/albums/aa112/thecharioteer/The_diving_horse_at_Hanlan27s_Po-1.jpg

You may need a shovel and a witch doctor to get that show back up and running.

http://www.thomasgrootoonk.com/wp-content/plugins/simple-post-thumbnails/timthumb.php?src=/wp-content/thumbnails/87.jpg&w=360&h=238&zc=1&ft=jpg

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii108/jasonzedd/Toronto/20110911a074.jpg

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii108/jasonzedd/Toronto/20110911a076.jpg

I really do hope that this Ripley's Aquarium will be close to par to world class Aquariums like the Georgia Aquarium, and not like Ripley's other aquariums that I have mentioned in my previous on this topic.

The crane is up!

http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii108/jasonzedd/Toronto/20111119008.jpg

I am really looking forward to this..
about time something like this is being built in the downtown core.
still a long way to go to be done.

That was quick. I guess there's not a lot of underground to it.

Here's the official Ripley website link of the project: http://www.ripleyaquariums.com/canada/

According to the website, it will be 130,000 sq ft and completed in 2013!

will be interesting to see how they are transporting 5.7 million litre (1,500,000 gallon) water.. prolly be shipping over big ass trucks with vats... like they shipped over those vats for Molson Brewery the other year.. and had to shut down the streets to do so..

looks gorgeous!... wonder if they are going to have a fish and chip restaurant included in it.. lol!

I'm pretty sure they'll be making their own sea water on site.

wonder if they are going to have a fish and chip restaurant included in it.. lol!

Cruel, but funny! :lol:

Cruel, but funny! :lol:

I try !.. lol! :lol:

I hope they have Mermaids in there.

Like they have them at that resort in florida

http://www.faemagazine.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/2507_weeki-wachee-mermaids.jpg

I want whale sharks and a giant squid!

Mermaids could be fun! Would certainly get the fathers more interested in packing up
the family and coming to visit it. :okay:

Mermaids? What's next Aquaman?

Mermaids? What's next Aquaman?

7SqC_m3yUDU

Mermaids could be fun! Would certainly get the fathers more interested in packing up
the family and coming to visit it. :okay:

And for you and the ladies TB.
http://26.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ljm9hy8tv11qbdi7vo1_500.gif

And if we can get our mayor into a tank.
http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000011905/polls_apri.jpg_5420_192471.jpeg_answer_1_xlarge.jpeg

I'd actually love to see a cool display of glowing jelly fish.

8tILwjSkPJc

Here's the official Ripley website link of the project: http://www.ripleyaquariums.com/canada/

According to the website, it will be 130,000 sq ft and completed in 2013!

i thought it was 150,000sqft and 2015 opening?

And no whales! The Atlanta Aquarium is disgusting.the georgia aquarium??? you sure???.........lol

Mermaids? What's next Aquaman?

Was just a joke; rest assured it won't really happen! :)

The big dig

http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx148/mariusbleek/IMG-20120202-00093.jpg

http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx148/mariusbleek/IMG-20120202-00094.jpg

Nice pics though that's not Ripley.


this is the Ripley site, right next to the tower, not very deep and tons of piping.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b3t1QgJtrxw/Tx1piLmAyBI/AAAAAAAAEP0/OiX3oZYx89s/s1600/Toronto_AquariumConstructionJan.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-q54YPtlDctc/Tx1pn3i9K6I/AAAAAAAAEQA/iRKs1uzE47I/s1600/Toronto_AquariumConstructionJanSide.jpg

Posted here - http://torontorha.blogspot.com/2012/01/progress-on-new-aquarium-between-us-and.html

Nice thing about an Aquarium is that the majority of the work is in the complicated plumbing. Also since they're building against a hill they're getting away without as many basement floors.

I don't think it's that bad, and I'm quite happy there will be a co-located attraction near the CN.

Agreed. The CN Tower is a nice visit, but to be honest it's not going to eat more than an hour of a family's time - if that. The aquarium will allow visitors to really spend an afternoon in the area.

Nice pics though that's not Ripley.

LOL Oh. What the hell did I photograph?

Think that looks like the new Delta hotel on Bremner, right beside Ripley!

^^Actually, that must be the aquarium, as it's right at the foot of the CN Tower.

andrews photos are of the aquarium, mystic's of delta.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1145708--ripley-s-aquarium-in-toronto-taking-shape-with-construction-of-the-concrete-shark-tank-floor

Inside thestar.com
A construction crew pours the foundation pads for the giant shark tanks at the Ripley's aquarium at the base of the CN Tower.
Aquarium comes to life

Ripley’s aquarium in Toronto taking shape with construction of the concrete shark tank floor
Published On Tue Mar 13 2012



Rilpey's is pouring cement for their new aquarium beside the CN Tower to open in the summer of 2013.
David Rider Urban Affairs Bureau Chief

The concrete floor of what will be Toronto’s biggest fish tank, in the city’s first tourist attraction in two decades, is down. Now we wait for sharks.

Construction crews at the Ripley’s Aquarium of Canada site south of the CN Tower poured the massive, 40-centimetre-thick pad on Saturday. Finishers worked until the wee hours of Sunday, then left the slab to cure for two weeks.

read it all here:
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1145708--ripley-s-aquarium-in-toronto-taking-shape-with-construction-of-the-concrete-shark-tank-floor

Time to update the thread title I think TB.

Done! Normally elk is the hard-working one who keeps all those headlines up to date!

Merci beaucoup mon ami.

From what? Prep to U/C?

Si. :yes:

I forget if it was mentioned, but will there be a jellyfish tank? I hope so.

I wonder if there's going to be a Great Lakes tank?

I wonder if there's going to be a Great Lakes tank?


Yes I think they are putting in a fresh water exhibit to highlight native species of the great lakes region. Did you know that Ontario has freshwater jelly fish? They are rare, but we do. people also forget that Ontario is also on the ocean like a few other provinces.

people also forget that Ontario is also on the ocean like a few other provinces.

:weird:

Ontario isn't on any ocean. James Bay and the Great Lakes border Ontario. The world has just 4 oceans (Indian, Pacific, Arctic, and Atlantic) none of which border Ontario.

He was probably making a humorous reference to the earlier discussion about lakes being "inland seas" ;)

Actually no, I was talking about James Bay and Hudson Bay which is a epi-continental sea, connected to the Atlantic Ocean and the Arctic Ocean. Seeing how big of a role Hudson Bay played in the history of this province and country I think it would be fitting to have a tank devoted to it.

With that said, here are some new pics.

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/03_19_2012_029.jpg

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/03_19_2012_031.jpg

http://i72.photobucket.com/albums/i165/whistlerinToronto/03_19_2012_037.jpg

Alright, but saying Ontario is on an ocean because Hudson's Bay is connected to the Atlantic Ocean is like saying Nova Scotia is an inland province because its just an extension of Saskatchewan by road.

Is there a north-south road between the Aquarium and Delta Hotel? I can't remember.

Ontario's Hudson Bay coastline is about 900km long and that is longer than the distance from Montreal to Windsor. Moosonee is Ontario's only saltwater port and is connected to the rest of Ontario by a railway but has no road access. Ontario's sea coast is not an easy place to visit so if Ripley's decides to expand in the future I would agree with AndrewJM3D's suggestion of having a tank devoted to it.

Alright, but saying Ontario is on an ocean because Hudson's Bay is connected to the Atlantic Ocean is like saying Nova Scotia is an inland province because its just an extension of Saskatchewan by road.



No Ontario has an Ocean Shoreline, I'm not sure why this is such a stretch for you. Your comparison is just silly and totally out of context.

I'm surprised to see this thing so far into construction. Seems like that was awfully quick.

Yeah I gotta say, geographically, despite how inland James Bay is, it is still a salt water bay, and an extension of the Arctic Ocean.

Ya, and it's part of Ontario.

^^ And Ontario is on Hudson bay which is second biggest continental sea in the World so I think we're set water wise.

Alright, but saying Ontario is on an ocean because Hudson's Bay is connected to the Atlantic Ocean is like saying Nova Scotia is an inland province because its just an extension of Saskatchewan by road.

Is there a north-south road between the Aquarium and Delta Hotel? I can't remember.

Ontario is on an ocean. That is a simple truth.

Believing otherwise is like saying that Texas, Louisianna, Missisippi, the west coast of Florida, and the east coast of Mexico are not on the ocean because they merely border the Gulf of Mexico.

BTW, Georgian Bay is part of Lake Huron, and the Toronto Harbour is part of Lake Ontario - just in case there is any confusion there! :)

So, we truly are Beyond the Sea! :eek:

anyhow, back to Ripley's. I can't wait till this opens. Somewhere in a pile I have a complimentary ticket someone gave to me for the opening.

I suppose people from Ontario can believe what they want. Wait till people out east hear this one! :nuts: :cripes: :hammer:

I suppose Greece, Italy, Sweden, Cuba, India, and China aren't on "the ocean" either, then.

^^ India technically touches the Indian Ocean at it's southern point and then the Bay of Bengal to the East. But yes all those countries have the same frontage to the "ocean" or "sea" as Northern Ontario does.

I suppose people from Ontario can believe what they want. Wait till people out east hear this one! :nuts: :cripes: :hammer:


I'm at a loss as to why you are the only forumer that can't wrap their head around the concept. James Bay and Hudson Bay are ocean waters. Go ahead, find somebody out east that can't read a map, I bet you can't.

Hudson Bay is considered part of the Atlantic Ocean.

_BYb6I9ugmM

I suppose people from Ontario can believe what they want. Wait till people out east hear this one! :nuts: :cripes: :hammer:

To be honest, I'm sort of surprised you are looking at it this way. Once it was pointed out to us, it is kind of hard to ignore simple facts. If anything this has underlined how bad most Canadians are at geography, and that is nothing for East coasters to be proud of.

It makes sense people would have trouble thinking of Ontario as an ocean province. How many people live on or near Ontario's Hudson coast? How many ports are there? How many beaches are there? How many people vacation there? How much of the economy is reliant on it?

Even though it is an ocean province in terms of physical geography, it is clearly not in terms of human geography. It really just depends on which aspect of geography one considers most relevant. Of course when it comes to artificial administrative divisions like counties, provinces, countries, etc. the human and physical aspects can be very difficult to differentiate. But in my experience when you call something an "ocean" "desert", "mountain" province, country, city, etc. we are thinking how it relates to the people and their culture, not just the landmass.

It makes sense people would have trouble thinking of Ontario as an ocean province. How many people live on or near Ontario's Hudson coast? How many ports are there? How many beaches are there? How many people vacation there? How much of the economy is reliant on it?

Even though it is an ocean province in terms of physical geography, it is clearly not in terms of human geography. It really just depends on which aspect of geography one considers most relevant. Of course when it comes to artificial administrative divisions like counties, provinces, countries, etc. the human and physical aspects can be very difficult to differentiate. But in my experience when you call something an "ocean" "desert", "mountain" province, country, city, etc. we are thinking how it relates to the people and their culture, not just the landmass.

That's a bit like saying the moon doesn't exist because nobody lives on it. If Ripley is building tropical water tanks that have zero to do with Ontario I don't see why they shouldn't do one for Hudson Bay. In fact, your comments and Isaidso's are proof people need to be more educated on it.

If we were to view provinces to only look a certain way be just because we only counted the populated regions and the topography around them, places like Alberta may as well stop calling themselves a province with mountains, and B.C one with fresh water lakes, And NFLD has no Fjord's hell nobody lives there.

No, it actually isn't. The difference being that no one is saying the bay doesn't exist. I'm saying the province is both a land mass (a huge, mostly empty one that borders on the Atlantic) as well as a diverse group of about 13 million people that does not border on or interact with the Atlantic ocean. and who are overseen by a Toronto-based government.

A better analogy for you is calling Russia an Oriental nation since a huge chunk of its territory (Siberia) is in eastern Asia. Or calling Denmark an Arctic nation since a huge part of its territory (Greenland) is in the Arctic. Or calling Montreal a mountain city since Mount Royal is in the city-limits while saying Vancouver is not since its mountains are in the metro area. Well of course all are 100% true (despite some debate on whether Mount Royal is tall enough to be a mountain), just like Ontario being an ocean province is 100% true.

A better analogy for you is calling Russia an Oriental nation since a huge chunk of its territory (Siberia) is in eastern Asia. Or calling Denmark an Arctic nation since a huge part of its territory (Greenland) is in the Arctic. Or calling Montreal a mountain city since Mount Royal is in the city-limits while saying Vancouver is not since its mountains are in the metro area. Well of course all are 100% true (despite some debate on whether Mount Royal is tall enough to be a mountain), just like Ontario being an ocean province is 100% true.

All of those are true and not tough for the average person with any sort of geographical knowledge to comprehend. The Montreal one is wrong though as Montreal Mountain is only a mountain by name.

There is not a universally accepted definition of what differentiates a mountain from a hill.

The point to all this is that geography (in the context of human administrative divisions) is not solely a physical land study, it is also a study of how various people interact with and are dispersed across the land.

It is not unlike the debate about metro areas versus city limits in that if you consider just the administrative boundaries of a city, you are failing to properly evaluate the true nature of the human settlement. We're familiar with the concept of human geography in these terms and most of us can see the value of assessing human geographical characteristics independently from political boundaries for the sake of greater accuracy. Well, just like a city (aka municipality) is both a physical landmass and a group of people, so is a province.

To me it's pretty clear that in terms of the physical landmass, Ontario is an ocean province, but in terms of a human population, it is not. Things are not always black and white and sometimes thing do not fit neatly into one category or another.

Hydrologically, Hudson Bay is an extension of the Atlantic Ocean. Hydrologically, the Bay of Fundy is also an extension of the Atlantic Ocean. Hydrologically, Thunder Bay is an exention of Lake Superior. Hydrologically, Lakes Michigan and Huron are the same body of water, it is just very narrow in the middle. We refer to Lake Michigan-Huron as two separate bodies of water because it is split into two parts by the Strait of Mackinaw. We refer to the ocean as four oceans because it is split into regions by the continents. We refer to the bays, seas, gulfs and straits of that ocean as separate bodies because they're also easy to define. But they are part of the ocean. It is the same water. They flow into each other. Hudson Bay is salt water, at sea level, and connected to the ocean.

The difference between oceans and seas is arbitrary. All the names we have for parts of the contiguous sea level water body are just referring to parts of the same thing. Saying Hudson Bay is not part of the ocean is like saying your elbow is not part of a human.

Alright, but saying Ontario is on an ocean because Hudson's Bay is connected to the Atlantic Ocean is like saying Nova Scotia is an inland province because its just an extension of Saskatchewan by road.

OK, I'll bite! Saying that Ontario does not border the ocean because Hudson Bay is not the Atlantic Ocean is like saying that the Strait of Canso doesn't touch a continent because the Nova Scotia Peninsula isn't North America. :crazy:

Ontario and Manitoba aren't considered to border the ocean because most people live far away from the salt water coast in the north, but you don't need locks to get a ship from the port of Churchill to the mid-Atlantic. It's already at sea level. It's a sea coast. Churchill, Manitoba is a sea port. Ocean going vessels can dock there.

From Wikipedia (the settler of all disputes):

Hudson Bay is part of the North Atlantic Ocean. Sometimes the Hudson Bay and Hudson Strait basins are considered part of Arctic Ocean despite that their waters flow predominantly to the Atlantic. Some sources describe Hudson Bay as a marginal sea of the Atlantic Ocean, or the Arctic Ocean.

Jeez, all I said was the Aquarium should have a Hudson Bay tank. Now I really do think we need one for educational reasons.

While I believe that Ontario has an Ocean coast, both physically, and with human interaction (I have friends who live on that coast), I do not believe that we should have a Hudson Bay tank in the local aquarium. :)

BTW, I don't believe in god, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus even though many humans believe that they exist without having physical evidence (and I'm fine with that - people are free to believe whatever they like). But should I think they exist if I buy Nouvellecosse's argument, since clearly there are humans interacting with them? Maybe we should just stick to facts when it comes to geography. :)

It does make sense that people might not clue into the fact about the Hudson's Bay being part of the ocean, but it doesn't make sense that they would simply ignore the facts in preference to clinging to misguided beliefs. Beach is right about this; it points out weaknesses in our geographical educations.

While I believe that Ontario has an Ocean coast, both physically, and with human interaction (I have friends who live on that coast), I do not believe that we should have a Hudson Bay tank in the local aquarium. :)

BTW, I don't believe in god, the tooth fairy, or Santa Claus even though many humans believe that they exist without having physical evidence (and I'm fine with that - people are free to believe whatever they like). But should I think they exist if I buy Nouvellecosse's argument, since clearly there are humans interacting with them? Maybe we should just stick to facts when it comes to geography. :)Perhaps I should clarify my position before you decide if you wish to "buy" it or not. I never suggested people should ignore the fact that Ontario has an ocean coastline. People seem to be having some knee-jerk defensive reaction that's causing them to misconstrue what I'm saying. All I am stating is the fact that using a term like "An ocean province" has both geographical and cultural implications. It implies that both the land and people have a deep oceanic connection (an implication perhaps less understood outside full-blown ocean provinces). As stated earlier, a province is both an administrative border used to divide up land and a societal organisation used to distinguish (and govern) a group of people. It is possible for a characteristic to apply to one without it applying to the other. In fact. it is not unexpected when there is such a divergence between the physical geography (the landmass) and the corresponding human geography.

Let me ask this. It's a fact that the Maritimes are all significantly more densely populated than Ontario. In fact, NS and PEI are more than twice as dense. So looking at the raw geographical stats, it can be accurately stated that the Maritimes are far more built up than Ontario. But as you may know, the experience of the average person living in Ontario may not support that. For instance, Southern Ontario has far more population, population density and overall development than any Maritime province in an area twice as large as NS. So which figures should win out?

The answer, of course, is both. If you want an accurate understanding of a situation, you must consider all the information, and not just cling to one piece that you happen to like. If you just stated that Ontario has less than half the population density of the Nova Scotia without any accompanying explanation, it would easily give a false impression to anyone not well versed on the subject.

Btw, as far as your analogy, in order for evidence that people are interacting with these entities to exist, such evidence must also support the existence of the entities. What you seem to be referring to is just the evidence that people have altered their behaviour due to their belief in the existence of such entities. That's a completely different thing and does not offer evidence of the entities' existence in the least.

I'm sensing that there is provincial pride involved in the equation. The truth is, it isn't even on the radar for most Ontarians to imagine themselves as a Maritime Province. The ocean is where it is, and it borders on more provinces than most people realize but Canadians are pretty solid in their (misguided) belief that it is just an East Coast/West Coast designation.

I think the only region in Ontario where maritime trade plays a major role in identity and development is Thunder Bay. Growing up on canals isn't quite the same. Thunder Bay is a rugged, ocean-going port like Halifax or Vancouver moreso than any other city in Ontario. Our geography is more like the east coast as well. Southern Ontario is basically a giant meadow with a ridge running through the middle.

Perhaps I should clarify my position before you decide if you wish to "buy" it or not. I never suggested people should ignore the fact that Ontario has an ocean coastline. People seem to be having some knee-jerk defensive reaction that's causing them to misconstrue what I'm saying. All I am stating is the fact that using a term like "An ocean province" has both geographical and cultural implications. It implies that both the land and people have a deep oceanic connection (an implication perhaps less understood outside full-blown ocean provinces). As stated earlier, a province is both an administrative border used to divide up land and a societal organisation used to distinguish (and govern) a group of people. It is possible for a characteristic to apply to one without it applying to the other. In fact. it is not unexpected when there is such a divergence between the physical geography (the landmass) and the corresponding human geography.

Let me ask this. It's a fact that the Maritimes are all significantly more densely populated than Ontario. In fact, NS and PEI are more than twice as dense. So looking at the raw geographical stats, it can be accurately stated that the Maritimes are far more built up than Ontario. But as you may know, the experience of the average person living in Ontario may not support that. For instance, Southern Ontario has far more population, population density and overall development than any Maritime province in an area twice as large as NS. So which figures should win out?

The answer, of course, is both. If you want an accurate understanding of a situation, you must consider all the information, and not just cling to one piece that you happen to like. If you just stated that Ontario has less than half the population density of the Nova Scotia without any accompanying explanation, it would easily give a false impression to anyone not well versed on the subject.

Btw, as far as your analogy, in order for evidence that people are interacting with these entities to exist, such evidence must also support the existence of the entities. What you seem to be referring to is just the evidence that people have altered their behaviour due to their belief in the existence of such entities. That's a completely different thing and does not offer evidence of the entities' existence in the least.

I littered my post with happy faces because I think most of us have been joking since ISAIDSO's "Wait till people out east hear this one!" post - clearly a joke (and a polite nudge for everyone who was jumping on his hydrogeographical confusion).

Even though your post was pretty funny, it appears that you are taking everything seriously.

PEI and NS are denser than Ontario. You won't find me making up strange explanations for that fact.

Facts are good. I love facts. But I don't make love to facts. That leads to fiction.

Ontario's boundaries are quite arbitrary though. Northeastern Ontario and the southern part of Northwestern Ontario only exist because Ontario wanted mineral resources to generate wealth and the privy council sided with them over Manitoba. The far north of Ontario, the part that actually borders the ocean, is part of Ontario because Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec were stretched northward for fairly arbitrary reasons.

Southern Ontario is denser, its numbers just get dragged down because a large hinterland is stuck to it.

^^ What boundaries aren't arbitrary... if you go back far enough? It's not like God made out a plan of original borders, or anything. They have all just sprung up for a million different reasons.

PEI and NS are denser than Ontario. You won't find me making up strange explanations for that fact.

Facts are good. I love facts. But I don't make love to facts. That leads to fiction.
Providing details and proper context for complex issues is what you view as "making up strange explanations" and "making love to facts" (whatever that means)? There are many, many things in the world that cannot be properly described or explained by quoting simple, one-lined facts. Some even require whole paragraphs or more of facts and details in order for them to be portrayed accurately. By not doing so, people are left with an incomplete view or an inaccurate impression which they tend to spread to others. Which is of course what leads to popular misconceptions aka "fiction." That's why short punchy sound bites should be avoided by anyone looking for accuracy, despite their popularity with politicians and members of the media.

Btw, sorry if your posts were not meant to be taken seriously. In the future I'll just look for the smiley and be sure to ignore it. :)

^^ Me thinks TB is right about your provincialism.

You don't seem to get the jokes, or the serious parts.

Facts can indeed be one liners that do not need to be qualified with paragraphs.

Fact: Ontario borders the Atlantic Ocean.

Why do we need to qualify that fact with paragraphs that portray it more accurately?

And that is a rhetorical question. I am not expecting an answer.

It is not unjust for someone in Ontario to make that statement. We don't need to add a footnote. Should all of Canada have a footnote? Also rhetorical.

Some things are exactly as they appear - that is why I love facts. When people start spinning facts to conform to their view of the world (making love to them), then we get ugly step-children.

Anyhow, I still don't think there should be a Hudson Bay tank in the aquarium.

Well, now that we have completely flogged that particular bone of contention to death, let's move on! :yes:

^^ Me thinks TB is right about your provincialism.

You don't seem to get the jokes, or the serious parts.

Facts can indeed be one liners that do not need to be qualified with paragraphs.

Fact: Ontario borders the Atlantic Ocean.

Why do we need to qualify that fact with paragraphs that portray it more accurately?

And that is a rhetorical question. I am not expecting an answer.

It is not unjust for someone in Ontario to make that statement. We don't need to add a footnote. Should all of Canada have a footnote? Also rhetorical.

Some things are exactly as they appear - that is why I love facts. When people start spinning facts to conform to their view of the world (making love to them), then we get ugly step-children.

Anyhow, I still don't think there should be a Hudson Bay tank in the aquarium.

I actually agree with TB about the provincial pride bit. The Ontarians here have been reacting as if not calling Ontario an "ocean province" is some type of nefarious conspiracy engineered by the big bad Maritimes to cheat the long oppressed Ontario out of its rightful title, when all I was advocating for is accuracy.

Ironically, I never suggested we should deny or ignore the fact that Ontario has an ocean coast. That was never up for debate.

But alas TB may be right. This discussion has been flogged to death...

Btw, after isaidso's quip about "people out east hearing about this" I thought it might be interesting to get some people's perspectives. I asked my mother on the phone which provinces she considers ocean provinces. I'm actually not sure how she'd classify Ontario since after a several minutes of me explaining why New Brunswick has enough harbours, oceanic history, and number of related industries to be included, I never got around to bringing up Ontario.

Why shouldn't there be a Hudson Bay tank in the aquarium?

Just another example of the South giving Northern Ontario the shaft!!!!!!

But what marine life would the Hudson Bay exhibit contain, exactly? Seals would be great. And how bout some Narwhal?

http://i750.photobucket.com/albums/xx148/mariusbleek/tumblr_l7qpx3Czh51qb69ulo1_500.jpg

Krill? A grey whale? :crazy2:

No whales. Your question is one that most here can't answer without looking it up. What sort of non mammal sea life lives in the Bay? This is why I think it would be great for even a small exhibit at the aquarium. Hudson Bay is also seeing the effects of climate change faster then most places on the globe. Education and awareness is needed and what better way then to show people what lives in our waters. For people to argue that it's so far from Toronto it makes no sense to have an exhibit, why aren't you saying the same thing about the reef tanks, and shark tanks?

Why shouldn't there be a Hudson Bay tank in the aquarium?

Just another example of the South giving Northern Ontario the shaft!!!!!!

The South, alright. The company is from Florida. I doubt if Hudson's Bay is on their radar.

Obviously the ignorance of what kind of aquatic life exists in the northern reaches of "our" province shows a clear need for an aquarium.

And to give you guys an idea of how bad climate change is affecting the north: most communities are isolated by land and only receive shipments by land during winter when roads can be built on frozen rivers. This winter, the rivers didn't freeze enough for roads to be built on them, so many communities are running out of food, medicine, building supplies, and other essential materials. Polar bears, starving and unable to hunt on the ice during winter, are invading communities and eating garbage. Northern Ontario is quite possibly one of the regions of the planet most changed by Global Warming so far. The difference between winters of this decade to winters of the 1990s is alarming.

Its truly hard to believe that many people still deny global warming..

It's strange to think less then two years ago this is what the site looked like.
iZHrRLAps6s

No whales. Your question is one that most here can't answer without looking it up. What sort of non mammal sea life lives in the Bay? This is why I think it would be great for even a small exhibit at the aquarium. Hudson Bay is also seeing the effects of climate change faster then most places on the globe. Education and awareness is needed and what better way then to show people what lives in our waters. For people to argue that it's so far from Toronto it makes no sense to have an exhibit, why aren't you saying the same thing about the reef tanks, and shark tanks?

I've been there, so that's why I'm not that interested in having it. You would need to have mammals to do it justice, and I'm against that. If this were some publicly run/financed thing, it would make sense to me, but this company is not interested in educating people on such matters (even though they will cloke themselves in "education" to ward off critics of animal captivity).

Btw, after isaidso's quip about "people out east hearing about this" I thought it might be interesting to get some people's perspectives. I asked my mother on the phone which provinces she considers ocean provinces. I'm actually not sure how she'd classify Ontario since after a several minutes of me explaining why New Brunswick has enough harbours, oceanic history, and number of related industries to be included, I never got around to bringing up Ontario.

Just for sh!ts and giggles, I looked up places in NS and ON that start with "Port". Looks like Ontario has quite a few more ports. Nevermind Inlets, Bays, Harbours, Sounds, etc. :)

Nova Scotia:

Port Philip
Port Williams
Port Hawkesbury
Port Bickerton
Port Clyde
Port Hastings
Port Hood
Port La Tour
Port Maitland
Port Medway
Port Morien
Port Saxon


Ontario:

Port Albert
Port Alma
Port Bolster
Port Bruce
Port Burwell
Port Carling
Port Carmen
Port Colborne
Port Credit
Port Cunnington
Port Darlington
Port Dover
Port Elgin
Port Elmsley
Port Franks
Port Glasgow
Port Hope
Port Lambton
Port Loring
Port Maitland
Port McNicoll
Port Perry
Port Robinson
Port Rowan
Port Ryerse
Port Sandfield
Port Severn
Port Stanley
Port Stanton
Port Sydney


Ontario: Iroquois word meaning beautiful water.

^^I always assumed that Ontario would have had fewer "Port" towns. Ontario's north shore is in the news because the Toronto Zoo's new polar bear cub has a new name chosen by almost 40,000 people in a "Name the Cub" contest and it is "Hudson" named after Hudson's Bay. The Toronto Zoo has four polar bears, including three adult bears that the Zoo also raised when they were rescued as orphans in Northern Ontario.

I've been there, so that's why I'm not that interested in having it..

Did you stick your head in the water and have a look around? If no, then maybe you might like to see what's beneath the surface. You don't need mammals to make it interesting.

http://amap.no/acia/Files/MarineFoodWeb_150.jpg

The polychaetes exhibit is going to be totally awesome!!

The polychaetes exhibit is going to be totally awesome!!

I had those once, I was on antibiotics for a month! :lol:

You realize that polychaetes are very large aquatic worms, right?

Did you stick your head in the water and have a look around? If no, then maybe you might like to see what's beneath the surface. You don't need mammals to make it interesting.

http://amap.no/acia/Files/MarineFoodWeb_150.jpg

LOL! :)

It was cold. And your graphic proves my point concerning mammals.

But the worms are fascinating. Honestly.

And would they have birds?

A Baleen whale seems reasonable.

Just for sh!ts and giggles, I looked up places in NS and ON that start with "Port". Looks like Ontario has quite a few more ports. Nevermind Inlets, Bays, Harbours, Sounds, etc. :)


Ya, that couldn't have anything to do with Ontario having more coastline/14 times the population. :doh:

Apparently people in Ontario don't know the difference between an ocean and other bodies of water. Btw, I saw a palm at Loblaws. That proves it; Toronto is in the tropics! It's been amusing, but this is taking spin to a whole other level. Can we get back to the real world just for a few days? I suppose it was April Fool's Day.

^^ Why is it so hard to accept that Hudson Bay is a saltwater bay, or more specifically a bay off of the Arctic Ocean? Is there some sort of Eastern pride where being on the ocean is the only claim to fame?! I don't see who we're insulting here...

^^ I'm afraid I'm with you on this one..... how could these facts get turned into a bizarre inter-provincial contest? :dunno:

I'm thinking that maybe the best route to take is just to drop the subject and move on.

^^ But "have not" Ontario's wounded pride must be defended!! :lol:

I'm just a bit mystified by the logic; but let's carry on...........

Hudson is a bay of the Atlantic Ocean, not the Arctic Ocean.

I could just as well have been called Hudson Gulf or Hudson Sea.

Hudson is a bay of the Atlantic Ocean, not the Arctic Ocean.

I could just as well have been called Hudson Gulf or Hudson Sea.

But it is still part of the ocean; what is surprising me is that there are folks who won't recognize that.

You realize that polychaetes are very large aquatic worms, right?

Yeah it just sounded funny to me, might have been the :cheers:

Is there some sort of Eastern pride where being on the ocean is the only claim to fame?!

No, but a spoon is a spoon not a fork. You can get to the ocean from Ontario shores, but it would take a couple days to get there by ship.

But, Hudson's Bay IS the ocean, is it not? It is a bay of the Atlantic Ocean; this isn't just a "technicality", it is "fact". Does the ocean stop being ocean because it comes into a u shaped cove? Is Vancouver not on the ocean simply because it is on the Juan de Fuca Strait? If you stand and look out at the Bay of Fundy, are you not looking out at the ocean? Seems pretty straight forward to me; what is it that I am missing here? :dunno:

Taken today:
http://i1265.photobucket.com/albums/jj513/k1o2n3/00243.jpg

by me

^^Thanks for posting.

Now back to the ocean debate.

I'm guessing that the sticking point may be the usefulness of the water in question.

Using Nova Scotia as one example, I would agree that their Atlantic coastline is more useful for commerce and culture than Ontario's Atlantic coastline.

But putting that argument aside, what is the significance of the ports themselves (regardless of the body of water)?

The 17 largest ports in the country are managed by Transport Canada. One is in Nova Scotia (Halifax) and four are in Ontario.

Below are the stats for each:

Halifax - 9.5M metric tonnes

Toronto - 1.5M metric tonnes

Hamilton - 12M metric tonnes

Windsor - 5M metric tonnes

Thunder Bay - 6.8M metric tonnes

Marine transportation is pretty significant in Ontario.

Then there is simply the history of Ontario - it is defined by water.

Sure being able to transport something, or catching fish is important, but so is industry. Because of all the rivers and waterfalls - Ontario has had a huge advantage over other regions in terms of its ability to use water for running mills, creating canals, agriculture, and eventually generating cheap electricity. The importance here can not be overstated. It is the reason that Ontario is the powerhouse that it is today.

So Ontario is clearly viewed as Central (or Eastern) Canada, not marine focused, and even land-locked by some (no one here). This is perception, but not reality.

Ontario has a spoon and a fork. We all see the fork. Obviously Ontario has grown well beyond its marine roots. But the growth is because we leveraged the heck out of our spoon. :)

No, but a spoon is a spoon not a fork. You can get to the ocean from Ontario shores, but it would take a couple days to get there by ship.

So? We still have ocean, roads or no roads, cities or no cities on the shores. You point is mute. Alberta and Saskatchewan are the only 2 provinces with no ocean shoreline.

The last few posts are really silly, please tell me you are joking.

I'm almost tempted to get on my bike and go down there to snap a few more pics just to drag this back to the Aquarium, and away from oceans! :lol:

The last few posts are really silly, please tell me you are joking.

About the fork, or the spoon? I don't think that our history is silly, but I agree that the discussion is so.

Does anyone remember the old soup commercials for Chunky Campbell's Soup?

Does anyone remember the old soup commercials for Chunky Campbell's Soup?

:lol:
"so thick you could eat it with a fork, but bring a spoon because you'll want to get every drop"

Gawd I hated their advertisements. Another one I hated was all of the McCains ads from the 80's/90's.

:lol:
"so thick you could eat it with a fork, but bring a spoon because you'll want to get every drop"

Gawd I hated their advertisements. Another one I hated was all of the McCains ads from the 80's/90's.

Yes, we are that old. I have employees that are younger than those commercials.

^^ They are such putrid tasting soups to me.

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/Autumn%202007/SUMMER%202012/IMGP2091iJuly172012Delta.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/Autumn%202007/SUMMER%202012/IMGP2071iJuly172012.jpg

from today
http://i262.photobucket.com/albums/ii108/jasonzedd/Toronto-04-21-2012-onward/DSCF6014.jpg

I'm really excited about this. Think of how great it will be to spend a few hours in there during a snow storm in the winter.

I just hope this is a quality aquarium and not like a cheap, tacky Ripley's museum. The one in Niagara Falls is pretty bad.

Gosh, I don't know if I've even been to an aquarium in the past 30 years. Maybe one at Marineland, I suppose, but I don't remember much about it.
The jingle on tv went: "Everyone Lovvvvvves Marineland", which I found to be untrue as I was bored.

Gosh, I don't know if I've even been to an aquarium in the past 30 years. Maybe one at Marineland, I suppose, but I don't remember much about it.
The jingle on tv went: "Everyone Lovvvvvves Marineland", which I found to be untrue as I was bored.

Marineland isn't an aquarium. It's a circus using sea creatures. A real aquarium is about the display of fish with a bit of information/education to go along with it. I went to the one in Baltimore, which was pretty good but I really want to go to the Shedd Aquarium, in Chicago, the next time I go there. I've read that it's a really good one.

I hope it leans as much towards quality educational exhibits rather than quantity. I've never been to a proper aquarium before so I'm hoping its more interesting that the tanks I saw at the Toronto Zoo.

Like most things I have no knowledge about aquarians. How will this one compare on a north American level or a worldwide scale? Middle of the row? I guess you could judge it on a few criteria. Interested in what you guys think?

I don't know a lot about aquariums, but discussion earlier on would indicate that Toronto's aquarium will be middle of the pack as far as size goes. I suppose variety of species, educational/research qualities, and the building's architecture/features would come into play as well.

I found the post from the past with size comparisons:

This all looks very promising. Divided into 2 phases:

Phase I -- 9 000 sq m
Phase II -- 5 000 sq m
Total: 14 000 sq m = 150 000 sq ft

(Phase IIa -- 4 400 sq m CN Tower retail pavilion abutting Rogers Centre)

Staff report with renders, courtesy of waterloowarrior on UT: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2010/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-31090.pdf

Size comparison (p*ssing contest), as per interchange42 on UT:

1. Atlanta = 550 000 sq ft
2. Chicago = 422 000 sq ft
3. Monterey Bay = 322 000 sq ft
4. Baltimore = 273 500 sq ft
5. Tampa Bay = 250 000 sq ft
6. Long Beach = 157 000 sq ft
7. Toronto (Ripley's) = 150 000 sq ft
8. Gatlinburg (Ripley's) = 115 000 sq ft
9. Vancouver = 100 000 sq ft
10. Myrtle Beach (Ripley's) = 85 000 sq ft
11. Newport = 80 000 sq ft
12. Boston = 74 000 sq ft
13. San Francisco = 65 000 sq ft
14. Seattle = 50 000 sq ft

As per bAuHaUs on UT, "this morning community council approved staff recommendations regarding the OP & zoning by-law amendments. Not one public deputation though. The final step is City Council's blessing on July 7 / 8."

Toronto Star article:
Freshwater Jellyfish Surprise Swimmers and Boaters in Ontario Lakes

Alex Ballingall
Staff Reporter
Published on Tuesday September 18, 2012

They’re down there, beneath the surface, pulsating gently like so many translucent hearts. Only they have tentacles. And toxic barbs. Freshwater jellyfish — forms of hydrozoa called Craspedacusta sowerbyi — are surprising swimmers and fishers in lakes and rivers across Ontario and beyond. “I have several hundred reports from 2012” alone, says Terry Peard, a retired biology professor in Harrisburg, Pa., who keeps tabs on sightings of the quarter-sized invertebrates on his website, freshwaterjellyfish.org. “I’m getting so many (reports) every day, by the time I respond to all of them, the day’s gone.”

His site lists dozens of reported sightings from across Canada, mostly in Ontario, B.C., and Quebec, as well as encounters throughout the U.S. and around the world. He says freshwater jellyfish aren’t as rare as you might think. The undulating invertebrate can be found on every continent except Antarctica.

On Monday, 43-year-old Graham Chivers was fishing with his girlfriend on Munn Bay in Belmont Lake, about 60 km north of Trenton. They caught a pike and were about to pack it in when they noticed a “tiny blotch” next to the boat. To their surprise, it was a jellyfish. “I grabbed my bail bucket and scooped it up,” says Chivers, who spotted about 50 more as he drifted in his boat. Michelle Wolfson, a Toronto mother and avid sailor, has twice come across clusters of the squishy creatures, once in 2010 in the Bay of Quinte, and again in Go Home Lake near Georgian Bay. “People don’t believe you at first,” she says. “There were hundreds of them.” The small, umbrella-shaped jellyfish is an invasive species thought to have originated in China’s Yangtze River, says Peard. They were first documented in the late 19th century, and are thought to have spread from China attached to plants and the bottoms of boats...

Read more: http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/article/1258665--freshwater-jellyfish-surprise-swimmers-and-boaters-in-ontario-lakes

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202012-2013/IMG_3802iJan152013ripleysaquarium.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202012-2013/IMG_3803iJan152013.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202012-2013/IMG_3804iJan152013.jpg

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202012-2013/IMG_3806iJan152013.jpg

By this time next year we will have posted hundreds of pictures from inside.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8085/8558018341_a17c86369a_b.jpg

Still waiting on my confirmation of whale sharks....

>_<

By this time next year we will have posted hundreds of pictures from inside.


I'm determined to get some interior shots long before that.

Going to pull a lucci/Tomms?

hehe... I am not as brave as those guys! I'm hopeful that a friend can help me.

Hope they can get a baby sea dragon, that'd be cool.

Hope they can get a baby sea dragon, that'd be cool.

Baby sea dragon? As in "Puff"?

http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j251/dawnd_01/WINTER%202012-2013/SPRING%202013/puff_zps340ae142.gif
http://www.quantumshaman.com/html/thatfeeling.htm

From today. I don't believe there's a thread for the construction going on at the base of the CN Tower, so I'll post some updates here:

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8266/8696211291_e8a12afcdd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696211291/)
Toronto (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696211291/) by Marcanadian (http://www.flickr.com/people/skylinemarc/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8122/8696225799_bf9ac622fd_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696225799/)
Toronto (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696225799/) by Marcanadian (http://www.flickr.com/people/skylinemarc/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8113/8696229171_8e932b5743_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696229171/)
CN Tower Entrance (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696229171/) by Marcanadian (http://www.flickr.com/people/skylinemarc/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8254/8696234755_b05bbf2f5a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696234755/)
Ripley's Aquarium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696234755/) by Marcanadian (http://www.flickr.com/people/skylinemarc/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8114/8696238065_f4eb1d24f8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696238065/)
Ripley's Aquarium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696238065/) by Marcanadian (http://www.flickr.com/people/skylinemarc/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8404/8697361210_a985cc7700_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8697361210/)
CN Tower Entrance (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8697361210/) by Marcanadian (http://www.flickr.com/people/skylinemarc/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8257/8696243217_f7ab257771_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696243217/)
CN Tower Entrance (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8696243217/) by Marcanadian (http://www.flickr.com/people/skylinemarc/), on Flickr

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8536/8697367996_08261f82f0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8697367996/)
Ripley's Aquarium (http://www.flickr.com/photos/skylinemarc/8697367996/) by Marcanadian (http://www.flickr.com/people/skylinemarc/), on Flickr

It's actually looking quite polished down there. I was expecting the usual indifference to quality materials and design. That pavement looks well thought out/crafted, nice to see planters, and those red lamp posts are a nice splash of colour.

Had a walk in around the building yesterday with work - it's pretty impressive inside - there's quite a lot done inside. We were told September as an opening date.