· Premium Member
It would be a huge mistake. You can put a luxury condo/hotel anywhere in downtown Toronto; it doesn't have to hog the waterfront.
We're just going to have to disagree on this one then. I love having a downtown airport. It's convenient, quick to get to, and affords a fantastic view of the city for Torontonians and visitors.Well, if the traffic were moved to Pearson, it'd still pump money, there's no benefit of it being on the islands.
Also I fail to see the vibrancy of the airport. Unless one is a little kid, it's not really exciting to see planes landing and taking off.
It's just a waste of valuable space. Instead, there could be another marina, restaurants, hotels, several condo's etc, connected by a little bridge...
Keeping the airport's need aside for a minute, I wouldn't want to lose the airport just because of this view. No other airport gets you this view while landing. It is unique and it should be protected.
That's a weird thing to say.I just could not get excited by a condo or hotel taking over the Toronto Island airport. This is not Dubai, and we have different goals.
I highly doubt this is a factor to any HQ's moving here. Any source? Also sounds partially like the reasoning for planned expansion, which was a bad plan opposed by major city planners.One of the main reasons so many corporate headquarters are moving to downtown Toronto is because of the Island Airport. Doesn't get much more convenient, it's is a major business attractor. CEO gets off their plane in an uber, limo or helicopter and into their downtown office within minutes!
And the planes landing believe it or not ARE a tourist attraction countless photos and videos & blog entries can be found online it's not just for kids as mentioned!
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-64222.pdfThe airport , even in its current form, contributes to existing air quality and noise - related health concerns . Traffic conditions, which increase the risk of injuries or fatalities and hamper access to recreational, health, and community services in the area are expected to worsen with expansion. Current and expanded operations at the BBTCA may also have negative impacts on health risk from air pollution, climate change, water quality, feelings of safety in the community, and enjoyment of parks and cultural and social events along the Waterfront.
Amsterdam and Hong Kong handles way more traffic than Toronto with only one airport.Getting rid of the airport would be a mistake, in my opinion. The biggest cities, nowadays, need two or more airports. One handles international and the most important destinations. The other handles more local service. Look at New York City; it has two major airports (JFK and EWR), and several smaller airports with lots of commercial traffic (LaGuardia, which has international flights; Islip; Westchester County; and even Stewart in Newburgh if you want to count that). Washington DC has Dulles, Reagan, and BWI. Los Angeles has LAX, Burbank, Orange County, Ontario, etc.
Putting all of the flights at Pearson would probably be bad because then the local connections would disappear. Billy Bishop Airport serves flights to places like Sault Ste. Marie, Thunder Bay, Windsor, Ottawa, etc. Airfare is cheaper because there's less demand for flights from Billy Bishop. If you put those flights at Pearson, prices will go up because of the demand for runway space, not necessarily because of more customers. Then flights to other places in Ontario will become less frequent. And when Pearson has to cut flights because it gets too busy, which flights do you think will be cut from service: the flights to Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay, or the flights to Heathrow, Rome, or Los Angeles? Obviously, the international flights will stay, and the people of Ontario will lose a way to move about their own province.
To me, speaking from experience (even I have used Billy Bishop Airport), the airport has value both as a connection at a low cost to consumers to move around central and eastern Canada, and also as convenient access to Downtown for those living in the area, or for charter flights.
I highly doubt this is a factor to any HQ's moving here. Any source? Also sounds partially like the reasoning for planned expansion, which was a bad plan opposed by major city planners.
Link There are lots of articles to be found, I'm a news junkie I've seen many interviews on local news as to just how vital Billy Bishop is to downtown! The airport was also one of the most important pillars in the Amazon bid.“Expanding its annual passenger traffic from 26,000 to 2.3 million since 2006 has highlighted BBTCA as a significant asset and economic generator for City of Toronto residents, including the 200,000 people who work in the Financial District each day,” said Grant Humes, executive director of the Toronto Financial District BIA. “Toronto competes on a global scale with other financial centres and the direct access BBTCA provides to other cities across North America is an important benefit when attracting and retaining business.”
Janet Ecker, president and CEO of Toronto Financial Services Alliance, a public-private partnership working to enhance Toronto as a global financial services centre, noted that Toronto is now the second-largest financial centre in North America and Porter’s plans will support efforts being made to increase the number of businesses coming to Toronto.
“For financial services industries, operating in a 24/7 global environment, ease of doing business is a critical success factor – as it is for Toronto, in its role as the second-largest financial centre in North America and a growing global financial hub,” said Ecker. “The island airport has become an integral part of that success story.”
Again, doesn't really back that any HQ's will move here at least partially due to island airport, just a bunch of people giving their opinions without any impact studies or surveys of CEOs. Pearson already satisfies Amazon bid. And high livability is one of Toronto's strengths with respect to HQ2, an expanded island airport would definitely reduce that.
Picture runway extensions the length of two football fields at both ends into Toronto Harbour and into the Western Gap, with enlarged exclusion zones to keep boat traffic away. Picture rows of light approach towers extending up to 700 metres beyond the runways as mandated by Transport Canada to accommodate planes landing and taking off every two minutes.
Add to that high and obtrusive walls lining the runways to shield small boats from jet thrust. And on the land side, doubled volumes of traffic carrying passengers, jet fuel, services and supplies overwhelm the already impossibly congested five-point intersection at Bathurst, Lake Shore and Fleet. This on top of noise concerns, impacts on air quality and habitat.
This is not a change in degree; it is a profound change in kind. We are talking about a different kind of airport.
Both the city’s medical officer of health and the board of Waterfront Toronto have sounded the alarm. If an application were made today for a new airport the size of the Ottawa International Airport on the Toronto waterfront, the incompatibility would be perfectly obvious. This doubling (and change in kind) is being rushed through as though it were an incremental modification with no clear applicant, no environmental assessment, no completed master plan, no jet planes certified, no business plan, no infrastructure plan and no funds to implement.
The justifications for the rush to judgment to approve this massive shift are convenience for some business travellers and a purported economic advantage. Both are specious. The net benefits in either case, given the opening of the air-rail link next year, are likely marginal. Much more important is what would be sacrificed.
It is our waterfront. From south Etobicoke to the Scarborough Bluffs and beyond, what is emerging all along the Toronto waterfront is one of the most remarkable transformations of its kind anywhere. The revitalization of these strategically located, obsolescent lands is providing new and improved places for the public to enjoy: parks and trails, a linked series of neighbourhoods, places to live and work, and places of recreation, repose and natural beauty.
Ken Greenberg is the former head of urban design in the Toronto planning department; Anne Golden is chair of the Transit Investment Advisory Panel; David Crombie is a former mayor of Toronto; Jack Diamond is a Toronto-based international architect; Paul Bedford was the chief planner of Toronto.
Are you saying that urban designers would prefer a hotel/condo in place of the Island Airport?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.
Nope, I said that to give an example for lost economic benefits. Personally, I think that a park or public space would be ideal. But, again personally, I'd prefer a hotel to the airport. At least there wouldn't be any air and noise pollution.Are you saying that urban designers would prefer a hotel/condo in place of the Island Airport?
https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/hl/bgrd/backgroundfile-64222.pdfThe Medical Officer of Health recommends that:
1. the Board of Health recommend that City Council plan for the most health - supporting use of the airport lands upon expiry of the current Tripartite Agreement, consistent with the vision for the Central Waterfront in the City's Official Plan
Nope, still air and noise pollution concerns would be the same. And aesthetically, an airport looks bad. I just said that because you said Toronto is not Dubai.Would you be more comfortable with it if there were urban airports like this in other world cities?
That logic does not follow. I don't like island airport, but I'd also fly from there depending on the prices.Torontonians are voting with their feet. Billy Bishop handled 3 million passengers last year and they're not all non-neutral business people aligned with Porter. They're regular Torontonians; many of them live downtown.
And regarding downtown airports in other world cities, we can figure out what works for Toronto by ourselves. The day when we looked for direction from some other place is thankfully long gone.
I used Dubai as an example, because I'm always mystified at the logic of the way they have built their city; it seems to my eye to have been built to be showy rather than on good principles of urban planning. It is such a car oriented city that I don't think they really give much thought to things like pedestrians, for example.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.
I'm downtown too, and I find Pearson very accessible. I just take green line to Dundas West and then UP. The only annoying thing is walking between subway station and Go station on the street, but they are building a connection soon.I used Dubai as an example, because I'm always mystified at the logic of the way they have built their city; it seems to my eye to have been built to be showy rather than on good principles of urban planning. It is such a car oriented city that I don't think they really give much thought to things like pedestrians, for example.
Building a big hotel or condo on the waterfront there seems to be more for show, also, in my books. Sure it benefits the people living or staying there, but not the general population. The Island Airport, however, benefits us all.
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.
Agreed, the discussion has probably run it's course.. but it was pretty interesting! kay:
We'll keep the tunnel when we get rid of the airport then^^ There's a tunnel with moving sidewalk that crosses under that channel. It is much more convenient than the ferry.