Gardner Expressway Replacement

borgo100 · #1 Posted **Oct 21, 2007, 3:24 AM**

i like this idea

http://www.toviaduct.com/

What do you think should happen with the Gardner?

Tony · #2 Posted **Oct 22, 2007, 1:21 AM**

Oh man, NOT THIS AGAIN!

This thing was argued to death a few years ago, then again more recently.

rapswin! · #3 Posted **Oct 22, 2007, 2:15 AM**

i think its a good idea, but i think the politians wouldn't be in favor of this idea anyways

Mister F · #4 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 5:30 PM**

Oh god, here we go again. This isn't going to happen not only because it's impossible, but because it would cost a fortune for no benefit, wouldn't solve any traffic problems, and would be a massive eyesore. There's a reason that nothing like this has ever been built anywhere in the world.

Jon Dalton · #5 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 5:59 PM**

From the website:

Habitable Pylon Towers
Since the viaduct is located in an urban environment, the pylons supporting the deck have the potential for additional functionality: habitable towers for residential or commercial purposes, all with immediate access to the expressway, subway, commuter GO train, and bicycle/pedestrian paths. The picture below shows concepts for habitable towers supporting the viaduct.

MolsonExport · #6 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 6:00 PM**

Keep the Gardiner.

#7 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 6:17 PM**

The problem with destroying the Gardiner is one of goods being shipped to downtown Toronto. Downtown Toronto needs a ton of product brought in to support all of its activities. Where are all these distribution centres that store office supplies, food for workers, etc? In the suburbs and beyond. You cannot ship all of these things by rail. Even if you could, sometimes it is not economically feasible when deliveries are small. And from wherever the rail depot would be, they still have to get to the buildings. I'd love to see Toronto connect with its waterfront, but we have to be realistic as well. Look at how our municipalites are being treated by the province today. There's no way the province would fund something like the viaduct shown above.

niwell · #8 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 7:51 PM**

Not this again!

I've come to the determination that it isn't the Gardiner that's the problem, it's Lakeshore Blvd. Remove or relocate Lakeshore East of Bathurst and build (for instance) structures under the Gardiner. Multiple use warehouse space for shops, markets, offices et al would be a great use. Make sure there are lots of cut through areas for existing roads and pedestrians and the Gardiner will no longer be a barrier. IIRC something similar has been done in London under an elevated freeway.

borgo100 · #9 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 9:39 PM**

How about burying it?

LordMandeep · #10 Posted **Oct 24, 2007, 11:54 PM**

that would only happen if the next PM is from Toronto...

(oh crap the current one is!) lol....

slide_rule · #11 Posted **Oct 27, 2007, 6:08 AM**

cost benefit.

way too much in cost. way too little in benefit.

i'm amazed at how the guy who proposed it is seen by some as an expert.

a cable-stayed bridge may have fewer pillars than the existing higway, but that's about the only advantage it has.

LordMandeep · #12 Posted **Oct 28, 2007, 1:53 PM**

microeconomics's|!!!

rapid_business · #13 Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 4:11 AM**

It makes much more sense to put it underground before you do something like this.... the big question with the viaduct is, why?

The transition from DT to the waterfront really sucks, and Gardiner doesn't help.... but there has to be other solutions before such a 'big dig' would ever be considered.

Canadian Mind · #14 Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 4:28 AM**

why couldn't you guys simply build structures underneath it, giving an allusion that it isn't even there?

Maldive · #15 Posted **Oct 30, 2007, 3:40 PM**

A large portion of the elevated expressway sits over top of all or part of Lakeshore Blvd. (which is a huge waterfront barrier itself @ 6 lanes)... thus not many places to build under it.

ssiguy · #16 Posted **Nov 1, 2007, 5:00 PM**

I love it!
If the bridge was to be lit up aka Vancouver's Lion's Gate iot could be beautiful and a real compliment on the downtown skyline.
Buring the Gardiner will not only cost a small fortune but would be horrific during construction, just take Boston's Big Dig as an example. It is affordable, gets rid of one of the barriers to the Waterfront and could help get rid of Lakeshore Blvd and create some nice parkway which downtown Toronto needs and the idea of using the pillars as potential residences is a great example of urban sustainable development.

niwell · #17 Posted **Nov 2, 2007, 1:19 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maldive

A large portion of the elevated expressway sits over top of all or part of Lakeshore Blvd. (which is a huge waterfront barrier itself @ 6 lanes)... thus not many places to build under it.

Which is exactly why Lakeshore is the problem, not the Garidner. As long as the offramps are reconfigured I don't see why Lakeshore can't be simply eliminated, or at least severely downgraded. I'd like to see structures under the Gardiner, flanked by 2 lane roadways on either side, preferably not one-way so as to keep traffic speed down. There wouldn't really be all that much capacity lost either, or at least not useful capacity.

Maybe I should look into this and come up with a quick plan...

Rathgrith · #18 Posted **Nov 8, 2007, 6:23 PM**

Wait.... how can it be called a viaduct if the bridge is not connecting to land masses at the same height? I think a budge would be a better terminology.

OrientExpress · #19 Posted **Nov 9, 2007, 7:25 PM**

I'm all with burying it. Use the dirt for filling Maple Leaf Island you know.

The Geographer · #20 Posted **Nov 12, 2007, 7:21 PM**

To be fair, the website doesn't say that Gardiner is the problem. It says that the rail lines are the true barrier. The viaduct is supposed to act as a bridge of sorts over this barrier while simultaneously opening up a huge amount of land where the expressway was.