Skip to content

Canadian Urbanism Uncovered



  1. Growth is needed for citites but as far as BBTCA is concerned, jets belong at Pearson, not on our waterfront. Board of health has said NO to benchmarks already hit and increase of CANCER, CARDIOVASCULAR, RESPIRATORY ILLNESS, already hit benchmark and expansion wouls SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE, from waterfront, to business/financial district, queen st, university avenue where hospitals are, all way up to queens park Circle. NO!

    Waterfront Toronto is already revitalizing “The remaking of Toronto’s waterfront has created 40,000 jobs and $3.2 billion in economic benefits. Ongoing and planned projects for East Bayside and West Don Lands will create another $4 billion in economic impact”. Or Ontario Place redevlopment and so much more

  2. Hassan says Toronto is “a city I love” but then badmouths it for having growing pains. Really, it’s OK to be a cheerleader for innovations and progress, but, a very big BUT, is to weigh the profit driven ambitions of one private company, in partnership with the Toronto Port Authority, a profit seeking government agency, against the enjoyment of those millions (17-20 per year) who come to the waterfront parks, entertainment venues and recreational attractions. Maybe its a NIMFY – not in my front yard. Yes airports support the economy of a city and Toronto has one with capacity for jets, a fast train link ready in a year and no extra drain on Toronto taxpayers. It’s called Pearson.
    Hassan, have another look. Richard Florida has. He’s looking at both sides now. That’s progress.

  3. Gee, where are the ads for Porter? Or condos? This sort of boosterism of more more more is far more 20th century than this greenhouse century. Sure – new thinking is a good thing – but why not goose the stable residential neighbourhoods with their fair share of density since the services are already in existence? Sure, we need transit – but throughout the region, and it doesn’t have to cost billions eg. Curitiba.
    How about some novel thinking about restraining car usage? Or even some user pay?
    Spacing has to do better than this….

  4. Hamish is right. Advanced cities, like Chicago, have been able to shut down and get rid of the downtown waterfront airports so that they no longer blight the city. We can too.

    Just imagine that airport turned into a car-free mixed use neighbourhood. What a wonderful place to love, work or raise a child that would be!

  5. Oops, should be “live,” not “love.” But on second thought, love is great also!

  6. The airport is nowhere near my backyard (Bathurst & Lawrence) but I dont mind being a nimby for not wanting it on TO’s collective front yard.
    It really doesn’t matter what the particular qualities of a proposed jet will be considering that the city’s legal team has discovered that once the agreement to allow jets in the city and port authority is changed there is no legal leeway to limit planes to a particular model or airline.
    While you defend expansion as ‘relatively moderate’, even Porter is calling for levels equivalent to Ottawa’s Intl airport.
    The little noticed motion to allow jets at Washinton’s sleepy airport, opened the path for a major airport amid the city’s Potomac River parks.
    Boston’s airport is not particularly comparable to Toronto. Logan has been a major Intl airport for over 50 years and is located at the end of a major industrial harbour. It operates 24-7 and has ample freeway access.
    Like many urban airports Logan has negative impacts on many neighbourhoods on all sides and its harbour airport comes with varying wind directions that lead to many flight paths over land.

  7. Spacing – if you can’t do better, don’t publishit.

    The post grad author is surely held to a higher standard in his school work than “The debate over the Toronto Island airport expansion has been characterised by hyperbolic claims of “Pearson on the Lake” by some on the no-expansion side, even though the proposed expansion is relatively modest.” – followed by pro-expansionism. We saw that coming!

    As */*!! as it is to watch ‘strawman’ arguments from unexpected sources, Spacing needs to aim higher to achieve credibility.

  8. Roger B.. You’re in my neighbourhood, but I completely disagree with your justification.

    I love the backlash without knowing the facts here.

    1. Meigs Field was closed because it was mainly for private jets and commuter airlines. Those commuter airlines were shifted to Midway. It served no purpose.

    2. Many of your are only referring to BBA and not of the premise of the article. You’ve all proven the point you’re resisting change and that isn’t progress.

    You all should have a read of my blog post where I discuss the backlash with Edmonton’s City Centre Airport and BBA.

  9. What was that article? Cram 17 “Spacing” issues in one article – add no value. Seriously Spacing get an editor – set some standards – or become irrelevant. Ok I’ll take the click bait. I don’t get folks that worship plans – with the idea they came down from God. The plans that exist are no less the product of political messing around than the ideas of today. Who says Doug Ford’s ideas were crazy – building a place people would use rather than just pardise for the rich and for lucky subsidized few. Few should deny – that Doug’s efforts took some of the “crazy” out of the Waterfront plan and inserted some common sense that started to move it off the paper and into reality.

  10. Doug’s ideas helped anything? Doug’s ideas improved something? I deny on principle.

    Doug Ford is like anti-bacon. Whatever you have, it’s invariable worse with Doug.

  11. ‘invariably’

    Dang no ability to preview or edit after posting.