WHAT TO DO WITH THE GARDINER EXPRESSWAY
a panel discussion presented by Spacing and Harbourfront’s Viewpoints
WHEN: Tuesday, April 15th, 2008
WHERE: Brigantine Room, York Quay Centre, 235 Queens Quay W.
WHAT TIME: doors open at 6:30pm, starts at 7pm
HOW MUCH: $5
As some Spacing Toronto readers may already know, the next issue of the magazine is focused on the role of the car in the city. To complement the upcoming issue we’ve organized a panel — in partnership with the Harbourfront Centre’s Viewpoints series — that asks, “What to do with the Gardiner Expressway?”
On the panel will be Calvin Brook, architect of Brook McIlroy, who wrote an essay in Concrete Toronto about how to reinvent the Gardiner. Brook argues that the barrier effect ascribed to the Gardiner is misplaced; the barrier is a result of neglect of the space beneath, “a blind spot in our collective understanding of civic space in the city.”
The other panelist is Jose Gutierrez, the creator of the Toronto Waterfront Viaduct plan. Spacing has written about this plan before. We’re excited to hear the developments of Gutierrez’s plan since we last heard from him.
One more panelist will be added before next Tuesday — we’re just waiting on confirmation. Spacing publisher Matthew Blackett will moderate the discussion.
WHAT DO SPACING READERS WANT TO DO WITH THE GARDINER?
Please use the comment section to share your ideas on what to do with the Gardiner Expressway. We plan to talk about your comments during the event.
49 comments
The Gardiner helps hide the street level atrocity that is the southern condo wall. 🙂
I’m curious how much of the land under the gardiner is not taken up with Lakeshore Blvd.
This is a great picture. As much as I’d like the Gardiner gone, the photo reminds me that there’s a big damn train corridor behind that does just as much to separate us from the lake.
You can’t use the ongoing planning mistakes that are the ‘condo wall’ to condone and tolerate the Gardiner, which has the city in a chokehold, cutting it off from its waterfront.
Tear it down as soon as possible. Work out the details later. Turn the Lakeshore into a canal reserved for cycle pontoons.
I’ve always thought that Lakeshore Boulevard is the barrier, not the Gardiner, and tearing down the latter will just make the former even harder to get across on foot. When you walk under the similarly maligned Cahill Expressway in Sydney, for example, you’re just on normal city streets and you hardly know there’s a highway above… at least compared to trying to walk down to Queen’s Quay. East of the DVP where the expressway now ends, Lakeshore is still something of a barrier to the waterfront.
Tear the whole thing down between Exhibition Place and the Don River. Bury the rail line in the same area, and redevelop the area with high-density development. The Gardiner and the rail tracks both serve as a major obstacle to redevelopment which potentially could be very lucrative.
Tear it down asap It is difficult to even imagine a proper waterfront while it remains.
I live on Queens Quay, so I’m one of those condo dwellers. There is something to be said about focusing on what is underneath the Gardiner and “extending” the rest of the city down to the waterfront. People may feel cut off from the waterfront. But people down here also feel cut off from the rest of the city.
Adam is right. The Lakeshore is the real problem, not the Gardiner. The rail corridor is a barrier too, but at least the trains offer something to look at.
I suggest the heresy that the Gardiner is about the only thing in the area that works well. Driving anywhere along there on surface streets is a nightmare of bizarre traffic intersections and condo parking ramps. It is an unpleasant area to walk. Public transportation is not great considering the population density. More ad-hoc condo development isn’t going to improve things.
Driving along the Gardiner is practically the only vantage in the city where one gets a sense of Toronto as an important, exciting, dynamic place. I know a great many people in Toronto prefer the parochial smallness of neighbourhoods to the cosmopolitian bigness of cities, but does that mean we have to tear down every piece of civic infrastructure that suggests we’re bigger than a collection of villages?
I agree with the above wholeheartedly. Tearing down the Gardiner would eliminate what is likely the most stunning view of Toronto as a city. How could Toronto recreate the romance of driving along the Gardiner and seeing the fullness of our city?
One question that has to be asked is, if the Gardiner is a barrier between the city and the waterfront, what kind of a barrier is it? (That sounds like a Barbara Walters question, but I do not mean it in that way.)
If it’s a matter of the number of north-south crossing opportunities, then removing the Gardiner will not remove the barrier. As others have noted, we will still have rail corridor, and we will still be limited to intersections (and consider that there will probably be pressure to reduce the number of intersections on a mega-Lake Shore to optimize capacity). This strikes me as being the largest barrier effect in Leslieville and points east, where intersection locations, rail lines, and development patterns significantly limit access locations. Contrast to the Beach, where you have pleasant tree-lined streets connecting Queen with the boardwalk every 100 metres or so.
If it’s a matter of the crossing width (number of traffic lanes to cross, time waiting at traffic lights, etc.), again, if anything that would probably become worse with the Gardiner removed.
If it is an aesthetic barrier (viewed from underneath or in close proximity), then naturally this would be improved. Traffic noise currently bounces between the underside of the Gardiner and the pavement underneath. Plus, it’s darker and vegetation is negligible. (On the plus side, it provides a built-in umbrella on rainy days…)
If it is an aesthetic barrier (viewed from further away… as in, “the Gardiner is blocking my view of the lake”, I am not sure how much removing it would accomplish… again, the rail corridor does just as much.
Tear the Gardiner down.
If Toronto is to be a livable city, the cars have got to go. Tearing down the Gardiner is a good first step.
Pollution from cars kills 440 people in Toronto every year. Let’s get rid of these killers and make Toronto a car-free city. Tearing down the Gardiner is a positive first step in achieving this goal.
I suggest everybody take a look at what Sydney did with their Gardiner. They worked with it and focused on ground where people interact and made it such an inviting place you never even look up.
Google things like Tumbalong Park, Darling Harbour.
I think people are so used to hating it they don’t even really know why. If you actually stand under the Gardiner and look at it as a piece of architecture, it’s beautiful. Look at the roman aqueducts and the high line of new york. These were functional, basic structures which we now hold in high regard because of architectural merit or the opportunities they have provided.
It is what it is. Spending billions to bury it is a waste and cars aren’t going to disappear in the next 5 years so leave it in place. When the time is right, maybe not even for the next 30 years, but when the time is right, think how beautiful it would be as an elevated park. I think we have to develop vision beyond the immediate, be able to understand where we stand and what we can gain by having patients and vision.
Plain and simlpe – Tear it down!
Make the Gardiner invisible: in other words bury it, but with proper breakdown lanes.
Bury it. Bury it in such a way that you build stores and condos, a beautiful public square or two, and yes a godamn bike lane on top of it. It may take a while, but the taxes from the land will pay for the construction. And make it a toll road to bleed some of the traffic off it onto public transit. think of the land and the new road as a source of revenue for the city, not just as an expense.
If the exits were tiled with an innovative colour-coding scheme, would we have to keep it?
I’m with those who see tearing down the Gardiner as accomplishing next to nothing unless it’s a burial of both the gardiner and the rail tracks/yards. Then simply narrow the lakeshore to a scenic little drive along a huge swath of green parkland from the don to the exhibition and voila! Extend the Esplanade along the north side of the park as a board-walk style thingy (which is what an Esplanade is esposed to be, ‘esno?
Otherwise, let’s focus on the real problem: the lakeshore and the anti-human scale of every built form that surrounds it. Walking from Front to the Lake should be a joy. Even if you’re passing under a concrete expressway. If you change the philosophy of the Lakeshore corridor from Sacred Leslieville to the Prince’s Gates into a space priviledged for PEDESTRIAN use…
…mmm the thought of it is more tantalizing than a mirage. That policy would connect the Waterfront to the Downtown (and vice-versa).
Berlin also has many elevated train tracks throughout the city, but if you look at what they do around stations like Alexanderplatz, they utilize the space under the stations to build shops, restaurants, etc.
Combine some of that with parks and other open spaces that extend onto both the north and south side of the Gardner and you’ve created not just a reason for people to go there, but a reason for people to cross under the Gardiner as well.
I’d also like to echo how awesome the view is from the Gardiner. Whenever I’m back in town I always borrow a car and go for a drive at night from the east end of the Gardiner to Spadina. It’s beautiful.
The Gardiner’s only crime is aesthetic.
Most people who advocate tearing it down also advocate destroying every other road bigger than what is necessary to support a third world village, and creating a city where it’s the cyclists’ turn to terrorize pedestrians.
And maybe all the commercial traffic that is Toronto’s lifeblood will instead arrive by hot air balloon?
I’ve got to agree with those who say it’s the Lakeshore, not the Gardiner that’s the problem.
If there were stores and parkettes and works of art underneath it instead of 8 lanes of traffic, there simply wouldn’t be any issue.
Close the Lakeshore, spray the underside of the Gardiner with a noise-reducing compound, do a bit of planting and building, and the Gardiner could turn into an asset.
West of the Ex, where it comes down to ground level is another thing entirely. There you’ve got the Queensway, tracks, Gardiner and Lakeshore side-by-side-by-side-by-side cutting the city off from the water. At least one of the Gardiner or Lakeshore must be either closed or buried there.
I am surprised there are no comments about the noise from the Gardiner which pollutes not only the harbourfront, but all the way to College Street. I walk through Trinity Bellwoods park on my way to work and it amazes me that I can hear the Gardiner as much as Queen or Dundas Streets. The problem about the Gardiner isn’t just the visual obstruction, it is the fact that a raised highway spreads the road noise much further than a road at grade level or better yet, underground.
Concerning the visual obstruction, logically I agree that the rail corridor and Lakeshore Blvd are also wide and busy. But I think this 5 or 6 story highway is a much larger visual obstruction and therefore a more significant barrier. As proof of this, I never thought the Gardiner section near Leslie which was razed several years ago was a major obstacle until it was torn down. Once it was gone, it was like a breath of fresh air. I still am amazed when I am in that area how much better it feels now that the Gardiner is gone.
peak oil is here. we’ve seen the early affects of motor fuel production from agriculture both in terms of food availability and cost. we’ve seen the affects of global warming on our polar ice caps, glaciers and have been informed of the probable impacts of these events on our futures.
Why are we even considering expending resources for the benefit of a few motorists to drive for the most part alone when part of the solution is more environmentally friendly transit including ttc and cycling resources, both of which are crying out for funding and implementation?
flatten the god damned blight! it is an affront to our futures and future sustainability. the lakeshore will be recycled into something more human friendly but the gardiner has upkeep costs obviating the same.
I say squeeze the city in as close around it as possible so that the Gardiner loses its dominating scale.
Shoulder buildings right up to the edge of it and have elevated crosswalks spanning high above them. Bring public art onto the legs and structure. Work with the industrio-futuristic asthetic rather than just aiming for another jogging path park that becomes inaccessible through the winter.
I agree that the main problem is Lakeshore Blvd. The Gardner, while ugly, can always be cleaned up in terms of appearance. I suggest that Lakeshore and all its intersections be made more pdestrian friendly, and that the city encourage unique forms of development under the Gardner (think London, or Granville Island in Vancouver).
I would concur that Lakeshore is the real problem.
I am against replacing it with a “park”, though. First of all, it’s too narrow and urban a location to accomodate a wild park, and it’s too busy a location to accomodate a manicured park. Secondly, a park is still a huge gap of nothing through which pedestrians have to walk to get from the condos to the city and vice versa.
Get rid of the Lakeshore. Fill it in with development — stores, warehouses, maybe a parkette, but certainly not an empty park.
Leave the Gardiner as is,
I myself am anti car, and am familiar with peak oil, am a avid bike rider, and live in the city. BUT
The Gardiner represents the futuristic thinking of the 50ies. A elevated freeway floating thru a urban area where you can drive at 90km/hour non stop. Was it a flawed way of thinking? Probably yes, but it shows an era in Toronto’s history, and provides awesome views coming into the downtown (I think us locals take it for granted). The Gardiner is reaching the age now were it is becoming a nostalgic part of Toronto. Every major city around the world has its flows. Removing the Gardiner is like taking a piece of Toronto.
Much like a person getting excessive laser cosmitic surgery, at first some might be beneficial to your appearance, after you just start to look like a nobody.
Flows show character history and beauty as well.
The gardiner is a structural ribbon thru the downtown which I think in a unique way has its own beauty to, making toronto what it is. Our efforts could be much better used elsewhere then blaming everything on the F. G. Gardiner Expressway
Cheers, Joe.
There are three major barriers to the Waterfront.
1) the rail corridor
2) yes the condo buildings
3) the car traffic, not necessarily the roads.
It’s the car/truck traffic making air and noise pollution, both when the traffic is slow, and fast.
So to “deal” with the Gardiner, don’t we need to “deal” with the traffic on it?
And to return to an old theme, improving transit fits the energy, climate, air, public health, urban growth/OP policy that we at least espouse, yet the Front St. Extension was at odds with all of these, and it would harm two transit systems for $255M.
Improving transit is quickly done with the GO trains, and the province has moved with 20% longer trains. But we’re only getting one of a dozen other transit options put forward, the WWLRT, which is discredited in its own 1993 EA as being not “cost effective” and not enough to “meet the objectives” of the WWLRT of brining in people from Etobicoke in a competitive to the car fashion. (Don’t believe me – Urban Affairs 388.46097 W1301)
Now the WWLRT is c. $650M? but we still don’t have a solid corridor study to really analyze travel demand, nor examine about a dozen transit options – and let’s include TDM in a well-resourced, empowered and going beyond Metro-era Edsel plans – to truly create evermore viable transit options, thus “dealing” with the Gardiner by giving us flexibility.
The flexibility for busways, TDM, tolls, bikeways, maybe giving it to guardeners for urban food, or making rubble out of it, though its pavement is some of the best in the City, it could likely support a lot of housing, and yes, it’s got a great view.
But it’s only about 10% of the incoming traffic.
And I favour a Front St. transitway of some kind for the most effective solution beyond more GO trains. It would also act as a Bloor Relief line as many head up to Bloor from Etobicoke then back down because the TTC is so unreliable, though the blindp leadership is reluctant to examine options beyond their chosen one, and heavens forbid they might read a project’s EA! What’s a few hundred million anyway?!
And yes, it’s a great view atop the Gardiner.
Getting snug is a good idea. Making life good underneath is good. These things happen, Gardiner disappears. So many European cities I’ve wandered have overhead bridges running through their cities (usually trains) but the city ignores them and is continuous underneath.
Indeed. There’s a lot of potential for mitigation short of tearing down the GE. Not to say that I wouldn’t mind seeing that, but as we’ve found out over and over in Toronto it’s never a good idea to hinge an entire conception of what an area should be on a single infrastructural change that may never happen. In London, the local equivalent of St Lawrence Market is located under a huge railway viaduct, and the three-dimensionality of the space which results makes Borough Market one of the most engaging places, urbanistically, in the whole city. A similar treatment could work in Toronto.
I think New York and Chicago have shown that heavy traffic is not an obstacle if designed properly. It’s not ideal, but it need not be a major barrier.
As for the condo slams — people, the problem is not the condos, it is the street grid. Many successful, exciting, pedestrian-friendly cities have condos and tall towers along their waterfronts. (New York, Miami, Chicago, SF, Vancouver, etc.) If anything the condos help hide the Gardiner and rail tracks and provide a little life to the area.
The real issue is that the street grid is woefully inadequate. Remember, it is the streets that provide views, public space, and a feeling of connection to the waterfront. A four-story building blocks the view of a pedestrian as much as a 40 story one. The frustration you are expressing about a “wall of condos” blocking your view is due to this simple fact of cartography:
Number of North-South streets, between Jarvis and Spadina, connecting Queen and King:
12.
Number of North-South streets, between Jarvis and Spadina, connecting Front and Lakeshore:
4. (Jarvis, Yonge, Bay, Spadina)
How on earth can anything feel connected via 4 narrow streets over a couple of kilometers? This should be the focus of what to do with the Gardiner — really snazzing up those four underpasses and adjoining streetscapes, and making additional connections wherever possible (Simcoe?).
And please, by all means try and showcase how other cities have done this. No sense reinventing the wheel — call up images of all the cities mentioned in the above comments, plus New York (West Side Highway and FDR Drive), Chicago (Lakeshore, Wacker), San Fran (Octavia, Bay Bridge approaches), and any other place you can think of where the space underneath an overpass has been made positive or at least non-offensive to pedestrians. Here are a couple quick example images from New York:
http://snurl.com/23x0t
http://snurl.com/23x1a
http://snurl.com/23x1h
uSkyscraper – you forgot York.
Don’t know if it would be very practical to make any more connections given the streetscape – maybe Church?
Simcoe has a new tunnel under the tracks that’s almost complete. John and Rees Streets also provide a continuous N/S route, if you’re on foot and don’t mind a few stairs to get over the tracks.
Oops – so I did.
It might be possible to add connections at Church and Simcoe, though the money is probably better spent improving the existing underpasses. Blast them with insane amounts of indirect light (so bright as to keep the homeless and graffiti away) and make them assets rather than liabilities.
I think we should keep the Gardiner.
While I’m not the biggest fan of ceramic art, it is a nice antidote to the musuem across the street 🙂
Someone up there wanted to know what kind of spaces we’re talking about under the Gardiner, so I took a few pictures the other day of the big space under the Gardiner at Cherry Street: http://www.flickr.com/photos/melissagoldstein/sets/72157604496957727/
If you’re walking in that area, it’s pretty clear that the ONE THING that is NOT a barrier to the waterfront is the Gardiner. Rather, it is the dizzying maze of roads that makes getting from the north side of Lakeshore at Cherry Street to the south side of Cherry Street a death-defying feat.
As for this discussion, it’s pretty funny what a difference 8 months makes. When we talked about this back in August in the context of Boston’s Big Dig, pretty much everyone seemed to agree that talk of burying the Gardiner was ridiculous. Read all about it here: https://spacing.ca/toronto/2007/12/31/the-end-of-bostons-big-dig/. For the record, I stand by what I said then.
I’m for redesigning and increasing the number of access paths from the downtown core to the lake–maybe even add a few pedestrian-only walk ways with great landscaping along-side.
Segments of Lakeshore, where these pedestrian paths would cross, could be split into two narrower one-way lanes. And I don’t mean with a median in the middle, but with a full block of space that could be developed (think street-level shops, cafes, etc). This would make crossing lakeshore less scary and unappealing. I don’t think we’d even notice the gardiner.
Picture a path like this when walking or biking to the lake from downtown:
http://www.todi-media.com/ph12.php
am i the only one in this forum who actually likes the oblique underbelly of the gardiner? maybe it’s just nostalgia – but i think the cold grey cement which defines so much of our downtown can become sort of comforting. Besides, there’s not too many other cities that rose to prominence in the mid 1970s, and we shouldn’t forget that at a certain time creating giant concrete things (functional or decorative) was considered to be at the forefront of architecture and engineering.
Whenever I bike along the lakeshore (which i do, much to the chagrin of all of the 905ers that clearly resent me) i actually enjoy the brutal beauty of our cement passageways.
And that brings me to my next point. Torontonians don’t need the gardiner. 905ers need the gardiner. They need it because they decided to buy into Fred Gardiner’s twisted vision of the modern lifestyle.
So here’s a question…. What are all of those poor suburban commuters going to do?
I don’t have a very good idea of the vertical space available, but could it make sense to build elevated pedestrian crossings over Lakeshore but still under the expressway? They’d have to have long, gently-sloped ramps — could be an excuse for swooping arches and other dramatic shapes.
As it is, crossing Lakeshore is simultaneously hair-raising and a slog.
Thanks to those who shared the example of what Sydney has done with its “Gardiner”. I’d like to see some visuals of that.
I also very much agree with those who love the view of the city from the Gardiner.
I think that the chaos that would ensue (look at Boston’s 10-year “big dig”), not to mention the amount of $$ that burying the Gardiner would cost, should deter us from this solution.
Instead, we should try to work with the Gardiner.
There’s a really good U of T urban design student paper on some neat ideas of how to work with the Gardiner (unfortunately, their site is under renovation so the link is currently gone – I’ll try to bring a copy of it with me to the panel).
I’m sure a charrette or competition would come up some creative ideas, including solutions in place around the world.
I spent a little time wandering around the Gardiner yesterday, and a few things ocurred to me:
From a driver’s perspective the gardiner provides an extremely important service. City traffic is so slow and congested that taking the Gardiner is almost always the best way to get from one end to the other.
But for a pedestrian, the highway does several things to Toronto’s waterfront landscape. Obviously it cuts most of the city off from the lake. It’s an eyesore, and it’s difficult to navigate. Trying to walk along the gardiner involves crossing and recrossing the street a ridiculous number of times.
But as I noticed when I was actually down by the lake, it does provide a surprising benefit… it keeps the rest of Toronto away from the waterfront!
I think at least part of the reason that Toronto’s lakeshore is so lovely and relaxing is precisely because it’s not over-run by the rest of the city. Traffic doesn’t come down there unless it wants to be there. On the west end there’s even a nice chunk of green-space between the lake and the nearest residential area. If the Gardiner wasn’t there the houses would be crowding their way right down to the water, as they do in the beaches.
So my opinion is that we should come to terms with the highway. Stop fighting to have it torn down or buried and start thinking about how we can make it’s presence a little less unpleasant.
There’s a lot of ugly ground around there, especially near the various ramps. Let’s install some greenery! Not all plants need a lot of sunlight. Let’s plant some that don’t. How about a skate park in that especially depressing tract just west of York Street? It’d keep the kids coming down to the water.
(While we’re on the subject, can someone remove all those anti-skateboard devices that the city has screwed into every bench and railing in the green spaces. What’s wrong with letting the kids have a little fun? What good is a park without people having fun?)
A paint job would be nice too. There’s noting like puke-green and rust to give a spot that ghetto feeling. Any reason why we couldn’t paint all that underlying infrastructure a smart shade of blue?
Some friendly pedestian crossings, and continuous paths along one or both sides of the street would also make a big difference.
And why don’t we throw a little arts funding into the mix? I feel like that long stretch of lakeshore under the gardiner is just begging for some sort of overhead artwork. I’m sure there are some great ideas out there.
Bury it?
No infact – make it double the height it is now…haha
To be straight up – I like the gardiner. It provides a great view of the city, from the Jarvis exit to Jameson.
Here is a video of what the tearing down of a waterfront freeway in San Francisco that shows the possibilities.
San Francisco: Removal of the Embarcadero Freeway (12:04)
http://www.streetfilms.org/archives/lessons-from-san-francisco/
Cover it with colour.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2fPqdG_qu8
Keep it in good repair and build more to see/do/live around it.
I used to work South of Gardiner (SoGa) and always felt like I was traversing a wasteland gettig to work and once there, we were cut off from the city. At that time I thought the problem was the Gardiner.
On a recent trip to Tokyo, I saw many massive raised highways that dwarf the Gardiner. I saw those highway while on foot as I was walking to parks, galleries, and stores. Culture, commerce, residential, bike paths, and green space were everywhere, almost ignoring these collasal structures overhead. It was clear at that moment that the Gardiner was never really the problem in Toronto.
Don’t focus on the Gardiner… focus on the space around it.
I’m looking forward with great interest to the panel discussion.
Here are Steve Petrie’s three cents’ worth of recommendations for the Gardiner Expressway:
(1) Visit http://www.toviaduct.com to view Jose Gutierrez’s plan for the beautifully iconically civic-pride-boosting Toronto Waterfront Viaduct (TWV). Then envision the graceful attractive TWV structure above the rail corridor with no more Gardiner Expressway.
(2) Read Calvin Brook’s crisply apt assessment of the Gardiner Expressway, in the excellent book Concrete Toronto http://www.era.on.ca/concretetoronto/ Then understand why the TWV is the perfect solution to resolve our Gardiner transportational angst.
(3) Use the Gardiner Expressway as testbed for public demonstrations of Steve Petrie’s Expressway Traffic Optimization (ETO) pavement-embedded signal light technology http://www.gettorontomoving.ca/ITS-ETO.htm concept for eliminating expressway congestion. Then use ETO on the TWV.
Whatever happens, with nearly 200,000 vehicles using the Gardiner every day (and that number is growing), we need a freeway from the QEW in the west to the 401 in the east. For, now the existing Gardiner works quite well, except that the missing link east of the DVP is a big headache. However, this freeway does not have to be the one we have. I believe that the existing Gardiner should stand for now and be fixed up and painted, but in the longer term, it should be completely rebuilt as the cable-stayed Toronto Waterfront Viaduct, which would be a stunning and beautiful multi-modal tourist attraction. The route should then be extended to the east to Highway 401 along an existing hydro corridor across Scarborough filling in the missing link. People are never going to get out of their cars and move to bikes or transit, so we must channel the through traffic on to bypass freeways, so that through traffic would be removed from local streets and there would be more room on them for bikes, transit and pedestrians. After the viaduct is built, the Lake Shore Boulevard could be downgraded to a beautiful tree-lined local street. Using a technology such as ITS-ETO to keep the traffic flowing and properly spaced is also a great idea to maintain safety and reduce concentrated pollution. Just tearing down the expressway and not replacing it with another freeway is totally unworkable.
Tearing down the Gardiner would be a messy mistake. There are some advantages to tearing it down but the disadvatages would be far greater. Consider the havoc we’d see with the whole demolition and restructuring process. Traffic sucks enough with it there. It would take at least a year to replace. Now imagine traffic without the Gardiner. I can only think of two options. The first, do what Boston’s doing. Underground highway/ park at surface. But I couldn’t see Toronto doing that in a hundred years. Or, we can take adavantage of the available space underneath and give it to the public. With all the condos being built what recreational space do the residences have? Sure there is the lakeside and other park space. So why not make more. No ones building under the bridge. Do something with it. I personally think a skatepark would be ideal at certain
sections (i.e. west of Spadina). With proper safety precuations, such as fencing and proper planning, it could be attractive to skateboarders and spectators. With good design it could be appealing for everyone. Vancouver has done it and it’s been a great success. Artwork, good landscaping, thoughtful design, and whatever else could be thought up can make this space something that would hopefully curve the mindset of demolish/rebuild. Good for the environment too. But there is some much space to be shared, basketball, tennis, & other sports could be implemented. Furthermore, this would save some green space. Toronto’s growing rapidly so we need to take advantage of any available space without being destructive. If we are trying to be a “green” city this is they way to go.