But, the islands are a park, and have been so for two centuries. In fact they are our most superb urban park, and are widely adored by Torontonians; they are also our largest downtown park, but they are separated from downtown by a ten minute ferry ride. They are car-free and about the same size as Central Park. . Rapid transit links would be a huge mistake. The islands are a bit of nature right next door to downtown Toronto that should not become overly commercialized; it would destroy the tranquility. People who want to go will take the old fashioned wooden ferries that have been running since the 1830's and will enjoy the ride. That would be like putting a nice big paved four lane road through Boston Commons to make it more accessible; definitely not necessary. And you'll have to trust me on this one, the Islands are most definitely not a park that hundreds of thousands of other cities have.The islands could be a park but there should be a rapid transit that links them to the city.
I don't think there is a universal designation on national parks, as each national park is designated by their country's respective governments. So this National Park City designation is a UK-specific designation. The Canadian government can copy this and declare Toronto or Vancouver as a National Park City. As with any designation, there are benefits, such as enhanced protection on green spaces (which 47% of London is), increased accessibility on said parklands, probably a more stringent enforcement in tackling air pollution, etc. Of course, you don't need a designation for these things, but it does help.
This has always been my point, too. High Park is not far from downtown and as I said earlier it is no farther from the CBD than Central Park in NYC or Hyde Park in London. Big cities normally do not have massiveI'm late to the conversation, but isn't High Park in the core? Sure, it's not right in the Financial District, but what cities have huge parks right at their Downtowns? Chicago with Grant Park? Boston with Boston Common (which isn't a true landscaped park anyway)? More often than not, the big parks are close, but not in, the Downtown core. Central Park was built away from Lower Manhattan, and all of Manhattan is now a central business district, it seems, but it was away from the original Downtown. Fairmount Park in Philadelphia is away from the CBD. Golden Gate Park in San Francisco is away from the CBD. City Park in New Orleans is away from the CBD. There are more, less-famous examples of big parks a little distance away from Downtowns.
Not to be pedantic, but technically Hyde Park is one part of four connected parks that includes St James’s Park, Green Park and Kensington Gardens. Regent’s Park is to the north. Still even when combined, far from being the largest park in London.
High Park is in our West End, and for all intents and purposes is a downtown park. Toronto Islands are extremely close to downtown Toronto, but no one walks to them because they would drown!How many people actually walk to High Park from downtown Toronto?
I trust urban designers way more than non-neutral business organizations.
You wouldn't find an airport so close to city centre in any world city.
I just said that because you said Toronto is not Dubai.
For many of us it is more than just a case of price; it is immensely convenient for people living downtown. Going all the way out to Pearson is a pain in the neck when you live downtown.I'd also fly from there depending on the prices.
You do understand that all of that land was owned by either the railway or the federal government for port use, right? It had nothing to do with whether anyone gave a damn or not.Clearly people didn't give a damn:
And don't make up stuff please, about airport not lowering desirability:
And you think building a hotel in place of the airport makes it livable or pretty?So yes, that area needs to be livable and "pretty," not an industrial area shit gets dumped like the 1970's.
I'm reading that report and it states that the waterfront is home to a higher proportion of lower income residents. Really? The Harbourfront, with all its condos and development, seems to be one of the more desirable areas in Toronto. With the rejuvenation of waterfronts around the globe, I don't know of too many waterfronts near central business districts that are low-income areas.
I can't help but think that any progressive city would jump at the opportunity to have a smaller airport so close and convenient to downtown. Just as Redpath Sugar is a working part of Toronto harbour, so is Billy Bishop. I was originally against the island airport but I only had to use it once to discover how easy it makes travel compared to the nightmare of Pearson.
Airport-related pollution, noise, and traffic may be negligible compared to the regular pollution, noise, and traffic that Downtown Toronto already produces.
Me either.I'm not gonna bother further...
a proper rural place must be much bigger and not surrounded by a city.
Rural places don't have airports in the middle.
The benefit you get from the airport is very limited as few people fly more than a couple of times per year. .