There are a few items of interest in the Star today about the Waterfront. Mayor Miller is in Paris this week to begin the city’s bid, which, if successful, would likely see the Expo take place on prime waterfront real estate. Royson James writes an article expressing frustration about the lack of enthusiasm in the city about the 2015 World Expo Bid:
Toronto has twice tried and failed to host the Olympics and the world’s fair. And this week, a delegation led by Mayor David Miller lands in Paris to begin the city’s bid for Expo 2015. You’d never know, though. So low key is the effort, understated the goals, and modest the effort; so timid the approach that few in our vibrant, changing city realize the civic aspirations.
I’m inclined to agree . . . while there are always costs and risks associated with hosting an event like this, it would give the city something to work towards, a common goal to get excited about. He compares Toronto’s attitude towards hosting international events with Montreal’s:
Montreal’s culture is totally different. It lives by the motto, “Go big or go home.” The result is the city’s known around the world; the city wins, it loses, but always it makes an impact. Expo 67, a spectacular success, is viewed as one of the best world’s fairs ever. The `76 Olympics was a financial fiasco, a boondoggle example of how not to manage megaprojects. Montreal embraced them both.
In the category of “news which should surprise no one,” people are still sparring over the Island Airport:
Porter Airlines plans to run 10 round-trip flights a day to Ottawa, president Robert Deluce told a news conference in Ottawa yesterday.
As always, Olivia Chow is fighting the expansion, and now Trinity-Spadina candidate Helen Kennedy is attacking it, too, calling it “extremely arrogant” and “totally inappropriate” in light of the federal review of the Toronto Port Authority’s activities. In the meantime, we’ll have to wait and see what the review turns up . . .
5 comments
As far as the latest deluded attempt to get a major fair or similar event here: I’ve been at many fair cities, as resident and sometimes working on the construction and design, and I’ve had a chance to see the effects before, during and after. This includes Expo 67, Olympics 76, Expo 86, Calgary 88, Brisbane 88, Sevilla 92 and Taejon 93. They all enriched a small group, displaced a medium sized group and left a mixed legacy of unusable facilities and infrastructure distorted to meet immediate goals, including distorted patterns of land use. Three of those cities are places I lived in and had to leave in large part because of the way they destroyed the viability of the neighbourhoods and economies that I depended on.
These fairs are also largely prohibitively expensive, and not much fun anyway.
Hooray for Mayor Miller’s lukewarm approach if it placates the corporate boosters and then allows him to return to finding real solutions for Toronto’s problems.
When I think of the world’s fair, I can only think of two things:
1. the Montreal World’s Fair (as mentioned). This happened in 1967, and for all I know, it could have been the last one.
2. on The Simpsons, when Bart uses his fake ID to rent a car and they drive to another former World’s Fair in Knoxville and discover the Wigdome.
Moral of the story: maybe nobody knows what the hell the World’s Fair actually is!
Maybe Toronto should not set goals that include:
1) Shutting down the only reliever (medical and educational) airport next to a privileged and wealthy neighbourhood, while at the same time
2) Hosting a world’s fair which, according to the city’s own official plans, will probably add one flight a minute for every day of the summer months, all taking off or landing over the poor neighbourhoods which ring Pearson.
Maybe we could do something truly bold, one which would not involve burning the carbon required to move millions of visitors to a fixed, physical location.
There’s more to life than loud noisy airplanes being able to land on the island, John. I know, it’s shocking!
-When Pearson was built, there were no poor neighbourhoods around it, non? Airport was built, the people came? Sprawl caught up with the airport.
-Island airport….was at the centre of the city from beginning. Replaced a park/recreation land.
-What does privileged and wealthy mean? Are people living in those condo’s opting to live there instead of Forest Hill? As far as i can tell, it’s people with middle class jobs, bureaucrats, designers, office folk…people who take two weeks of vacation a year, then go back to work. Is that privileged? Who are the students who go to the City School at Bathurst and Queens Quay? Again, folks opting for it, instead of Upper Canada College? Who lives in the massive co-ops across from the island airport? Hippy refugees from Rosedale?
It’s fine to support the island airport for real reasons, but don’t make up fake ones.