Editor’s Letter (January 2014): Porter’s expansion is an enthusiastic embrace of urban life
My new favourite spot in the city is the rooftop patio of the Corus Quay building, the headquarters for Corus Entertainment, at the foot of Jarvis Street. The building, which opened in 2010, was designed by Jack Diamond and bears his firm’s signature understated elegance. Back in the fall, on a gloriously mild October night, I stood on that deck, and the view was spectacular: dozens of pleasure boats to the south, a vast collection of glistening urban towers, many of them new, to the northwest.
A container ship was unloading barrels of raw sugar at the Redpath refinery—a last gasp of industry in the downtown. The overall impression was of a bustling, densely urban, multi-purpose waterfront.
I was there for a lecture by Jennifer Bradley of the Brookings Institute, who was in town to promote her book The Metropolitan Revolution, in which she explains how cities can save themselves from urban collapse. She is a compelling speaker, but her message didn’t seem relevant to Toronto. Our big urban problem is the opposite of collapse; it’s rapid growth. We are building at a ferocious rate, attracting 100,000 new residents a year, erecting new buildings on any scrap of land we can find. Our aging infrastructure can’t cope with the robust development.
The city’s expansionist mood is particularly visible south of Front Street. We finally abandoned the utopian notion of burying the Gardiner, and instead got busy creating beautiful and useful spaces around it. As anyone who has visited the Air Canada Centre lately can tell you, a new, far-reaching neighbourhood has sprung up that residents gamely call South Core. Waterfront Toronto has an astonishing number of projects on the go: Queens Quay is getting a facelift, an internationally renowned design team is revamping Ontario Place, and a new George Brown campus has just been completed. There are new promenades, condos, parks, restaurants—and then there’s a whole slew of developments slated to be built for the 2015 Pan Am Games. Stagnation on the waterfront used to be a source of great shame for Torontonians. Not anymore.
The momentum seems unstoppable, which is why I’m so bewildered by the decibel level of the No Jets T.O. campaign, led by citizen activists, to stop Porter Airlines from adding jets to its fleet. Its leaders say that jets at the island airport threaten revitalization in the area. The campaign’s tag line, which appears on lawn signs across the city, is “Save Toronto’s Waterfront.” But clearly, it doesn’t need saving. In this issue, Philip Preville considers what’s really at stake.
Eleven years ago, David Miller won his first mayoral election by vowing to quash a proposed fixed link to the island airport. He said Porter planes would doom efforts to bring life to Toronto’s waterfront. He failed to prevent the planes, and yet the waterfront is flourishing. Now there’s a new population there who like to jog by the lake, walk to work, dine out near home, and also hop over to the airport for business and vacation travel. It seems to me that Porter’s expansion, the growth of the downtown core and the revitalization along the waterfront are all part of the same phenomenon: an enthusiastic embrace of urban life way downtown.
You speak in glowing terms of Waterfront Toronto’s efforts to build a magnificent Waterfront. You must now educate yourself by reading WT’s Statement Against Expansion with jets, as well as the excellent reports by Consultants and City Staff. You owe it to yourself and to your readers to be more informed, specially as TL start with a low credibility on the airport issue, as their are so reliant on Porter advertising.
Sarah, you are clearly misinformed or are intentionally misleading your readers. Have you not read the Toronto Board of Health report, the Waterfront Toronto letter to the Executive Committee and the Waterfront Secretariat report? The expansion is not about Porter’s current operations. It is about the generational decision to change the use of the waterfront. Large jets serving long haul leisure destinations should fly from Pearson. Toronto’s waterfront is not the place to build an expanded airport, in its first iteration before all slot and time of night restrictions are removed by the TPA, to serve the same traffic as flying from Ottawa.
Sarah,your article is a terrible take on the future development and use of our Harbour front. Wake up and listen to all parties. I would suggest that you give up your Day job and write only for the Porter newsletter, geared to his customers.
In fact, Sarah, if you read the City reports, they confirm just what David Miller warned about ten years ago – the noise and traffic on Bathurst Quay is impossible, and the health impacts of the existing TPA/Porter operation are above acceptable levels. Those reports only validate what the waterfront communities have been saying for the past decade.
Sad that your whole premise is that because the waterfront is thriving, it deserves abuse. While many people in their choices of residential location and flying preferences like the experience of flying from BBTCA, particularly with Porter Airlines, it doesn’t follow that large-scale airport expansion, and the introduction of jets, will make things better. Much more careful thought than yours by Waterfront Toronto, the City’s Board of Health, City Staff, and consultants hired by the Toronto Port Authority — the airport operators themselves — are FAR more cautionary, if not downright in opposition. These extensive studies are readily available at the City’s project review page. Attacking NoJetsTO is picking a soft target: do your research and try disputing on facts.
And you state that Toronto’s growth is leading us to: “erect[ing] new buildings on any scrap of land we can find”. Don’t you realize that airport expansion would challenge the viability of that energetic growth in the central city’s greatest undeveloped reserve of land: the eastern Portlands — the very dynamism that you are praising? Until Transport Canada says DEFINITIVELY that this expansion would not limit building heights in this area, it is foolhardy to rush into approval.
It also has to be seen as fiscally irresponsible to spend hundreds of millions of City money to create the groundside infrastructure needed to support the expanded airport. Why divert the City’s infrastructure money — sorely needed for a relief line from downtown — to duplicate airport capacity that already exists at Pearson? With the Union-Pearson rail link imminent, the “the Island airport is SO convenient” argument is facile, and perhaps straight-out elitist.
Next time you publish an op-ed on the airport, perhaps also divulge the extent of advertising dollars you receive from those interests vested in expansion. Your credibility is at stake.
Sarah Fulford, I’m embarrassed for you. You cannot seriously be a writer. Put this two-bit article away and read it in twenty years.
I left the Toronto area many years ago, but still have roots that bring me back regularly. Every time I do, I am shocked by the ferocity of the waterfront development. And by shocked, I mean appalled. Sarah, what you refer to as “revitalization” has become obscene urban development (in my view) — what groups like No Jets T.O. refer to is a sustainable balance of preservation and development. The two are not alike. I admit that I take advantage of Porter’s wonderful service, but also realize that expansion on the island (including jets) is not a beneficial long-term project for Toronto considering the many other areas of transportation desperately in need of attention. I also have a deep respect for those living on and around the island to slow the precipitation of urban development. Once upon a time there were no condo balconies within arm’s reach of the Gardiner, and you could actually see the lake from most points north of it, as opposed to seeing only new developments on top of each other. While I understand your viewpoint, you’re doing a disservice to your readers in wholeheartedly accepting and supporting this “unstoppable…momentum” without also considering what is sustainable. I believe the once-beautiful Toronto waterfront is already long gone, but it need not get worse.
Ms. Fulford , you obviously did not do your research or read the reports of the various agencies that have commented negatively on the need for more information before a decision is made OR the imbalance that an ever expanding airport at this location will have on our thriving waterfront. Yes it is blossoming in many wonderful ways, BUT that is not because of the Island Airport with it’s boutique service. An expanding international airport with Jets on this tiny plot of land will tip that imbalance and the monies invested will be wasted. So do your research before you write in the future. Others point to the various places for more information. Good information, good questions and valid reasons for asking for sober thought before we destroy our beautiful waterfront for the purpose of one industry.
When did Toronto Life become Porter’s in-flight magazine?
Very well said. I live on the waterfront and the city bustle and buzz of the jets is a part of the thriving downtown that I love. If I want peace and quiet ill move to the country. The airport was there long before the condos. And please tell me they have no environmental impact. If you dont like noise dont live downtown.
They aren’t large jets. And the number of slots aren’t increasing. So the level of air traffic would remain the same.
Hey junctiongirl: head up to Carlingview Drive and wait for a Westjet Boeing 737-600 to pass overhead. You won’t have to wait long. That would be the picture over Toronto Harbour or Ontario place. Except that Porter’s desired CS100s are 12 feet longer than those jets. They are large jets.
And if you believe that the number of slots won’t increase just because the studies examine 202-slot scenarios, try instead looking at the Toronto Port Authority’s own report, commissioned from Jacobs Consultancy, that develops scenarios up to 440 slots, even within the existing Tripartite Agreement. Never mind the pattern already established of slot increases.
What you are saying is BS.
“The airport was there long before the condos.” true, but irrelevant.
The Tripartite Agreement — saying no jets except Medevac — was there before Porter. Robert Deluce knew that going in.
Not to mention that the condos were there before the airport’s commercial passenger traffic grew 1000% in six years, in contravention of the Tripartite Agreement’s stipulation that the airport is for “limited STOL” use.
And junctiongirl, if you want to know what you are talking about in terms of environmental impact of the condos versus the airport, look at the facts in the Board of Health materials. Don’t just spout your wishes or beliefs.
If you would like people to take you seriously perhaps you could try not resorting to insults. A difference of opinion is not in fact BS. When compared to most passenger commercial jets the CS100 is relatively small. The current agreement is outdated and based on old technology, so if the noise levels aren’t increased and a viable plan is put in place to handle the flow of passengers there really is no argument.
Sarah, your piece is so incredibly disappointing. As a long-time Toronto Life subscriber, I’ve appreciated the magazine’s embrace of what makes Toronto special: incredible restaurants, thriving cultural activities, the indie music scene, eclectic art galleries, etc. In no way does an expanded island airport fit in with my vision of what Toronto COULD be. Please look at the facts – the main one being that no other world-class global city has an airport on their waterfront – ZERO. For good reason – if we allow jets on the island airport, we are undoubtedly welcoming an ever-growing international airport that will surely detract, if not ruin, Toronto’s treasured waterfront.
Wishes or beliefs? How is stating that I enjoy the airport as a part of my waterfront home spouting anything? Bottom line is that it doesn’t impact my property value or my quality of life. And its darn convenient when I want to take a trip. I celebrate Porter Airlines as a Canadian business success story, they stimulate the area and the economy, I say well done Porter!
“I enjoy”…”my waterfront home”…”my property value”…”my quality of life”… “convenient” ….”I want to take a trip”… “I celebrate”… “I say well done” ===> It’s clear where you are coming from.
No doubt Porter Airlines has made their customers happy, and good for them. But the growth that ensues has a proper place at Pearson. The waterfront that we leave to the future is more important than a quick fix for impatient travellers.
“When compared to most passenger commercial jets the CS100 is relatively small.” Why make that comparison? “Most commercial passenger jets” are not what is now flying at BBTCA. But we can differ on whether 59,000 lbs and 114 feet in length is small, I suppose.
And BBTCA is VERY SMALL compared to Pearson, where commercial passenger jets fly.
The current agreement is not outdated, it was and is extremely farsighted. It recognized that the problems with jets were not just about noise, and so stipulated BOTH noise restrictions AND jet prohibitions.
Looking at the scenarios for cadmium and hexavalent chromium pollution related to JETS instead of turboprops makes this very clear. Jets pollute both more and differently than other aircraft.
And there is no plan in place to handle even today’s traffic congestion: but we know the TPA and Porter don’t want to pick up the tab for the consequences of their airport growth.
Isn’t that what this argument comes down to in general? If you were truly concerned with the state of the waterfront you would be more concerned with the massive residential expansion that has taken over the waterfront. I am writing about the personal impact I have experienced as someone who lives directly across from the airport. That has been the common argument – that the airport in some way the airport affects the quality of life and health of local residents. I am stating that personally it has had no adverse affect on me and the people I associate with that live in the area. For you to skew my words and make them something selfish is just like calling my argument BS. My EXPERIENCE in living on the waterfront is that is a vibrant and bustling community with a terrific local airport.
Can I think that condo over-development AND rampant airport growth are BOTH problems? Or do I have to choose?
I’m glad that the airport has so far had no adverse effects on your health. But living where you say you do, please realize that you are greater risk than you would be living in many other places, and that that risk will be greater still with jet expansion, or turboprop expansion, at the airport. Those are facts, unfortunately.
I urge you for your own sake to set aside considerations of convenience and admiration for the good job Porter Airlines does for its customers, and to look at the report of the City’s Board of Health and the Health Impact Study created by Golder Associates. The material is available online.
There is more at stake for you, actually, than for me. I live in Mississauga, and happen to enjoy the Toronto waterfront. But I have a choice about the air I breathe day to day, and the particular waterfront I choose to enjoy. If you live directly across from the airport, you don’t.
Prominent city builders, who have revitalized the waterfront, are strongly opposed to the proposed Billy Bishop airport jet expansion, including Paul Bedford, the ex-City Planner of the City of Toronto, Ken Greenberg, urban planner, David Miller and David Crombie, former mayors of Toronto. Add to this united front, Dr. David McKeown, the Medical Officer of the City of Toronto’s Board of Health, and the Board of Health’s recent unanimous opposition against the jet expansion.
All of these city builders are concerned about the hot zone of 15% more pollution in the immediate vicinity of the airport, and the possibility of the waterfront returning to its industrial past, with the imbalance of the expanding airport taking away from the harbour front’s recreational use.
As Waterfrontoronto said, “There is a clear vision for the waterfront being implemented now that is transforming our waterfront. What is required is a clear vision and decision on the appropriate scale for BBTCA within a thriving waterfront. Specifically, how large can the airport become before a tipping point is reached that overwhelms and threatens the present and future potential of the waterfront?”
It is all about balance and health, and environmental and generational impact, and that once the Tripartite Agreement is ratified, every airline will want to tip the balance for flights in their favour at the expense of the recreational use of the waterfront. Many more jobs will created on the waterfront than the airport in the future, too.
-If you are comparing apples to apples its not in fact then a “large Jet” If you are comparing it to the turboprop Q400 then it is larger then that, but as I said – Its not a 757 they are proposing, its misleading to call it large.
-The current agreement is absolutely outdated and based on technology available in 1983.
– Yes Jets generally pollute more and differently, however it should be noted what the acceptable levels are – The CS100 is considered very clean in comparison to other jets and within acceptable heath levels. Just like your car, or suv, or the gas you use to heat your home.
– The GTA is a massive ball of gridlock, no matter where you go. I agree that something should be done to handle the increased flow of traffic, however whether the airport expands or not, the congestion will increase as the condos go up and the population increases. A sustainable plan for traffic could include the airport. I will speculate that with the addition of the tunnel and encouraged use of the shuttle we could see decreased rates of traffic.
You are wrong in that I do have a choice. I can move. But I choose to live in downtown Toronto because its my choice and aside from the pollution I love the accessibility, the convenience, the fact that I don’t have to drive all the way out to Pearson to get on a plane. That fact that I don’t really have to drive anywhere to do anything thus not contributing to the pollution issues. Using the airport as a cause of heath concerns while living in a smoggy city centre next to the Gardiner and a lake with health closures for pollution every summer seems a petty argument. Especially if you are a part of the sprawling suburbia that is Mississauga.
The proposed jets (from Porter) are twice the size of the current Q400 planes. That is large if you are in your kayak in the harbour. The TPA has already started down the path of increasing the slots by pushing general aviation out of the airport. Once the tripartite agreement is opened there is nothing to stop the expansion. the proposed expansion is not to serve Ontarians and business travellers, who are served already by the turboprops. It is to create another leisure travel jet port for people to LEAVE Toronto, not visit it.
junctiongirl So what about the slot increase to 440, There is no end insight. The TPA is not needed in the harbour, they have no other business to keep their bloated infrastructure afloat, and all their decisions are irresponsible at best and not in the interest for Toronto at large.
As a service to your readers and to demonstrate that you were not paid (directly or indirectly) to write your Editor’s opinion and only give space to the expansion viewpoint, how about posting on-line immediately and printing in the February edition the Board of Health recommendation and Waterfront Toronto’s letter to the Executive Committee.
I second this suggestion — the time for “opinion pieces” is after the facts are on the table.
Really? If you are in your kayak in the harbour? A bus or streetcar is large in comparison too, should we stop it from driving along Queens Quay? Shouldn’t we then be against the yachts and boats and container ships? I’m sure they are difficult to manouver around in your Kayak. And of the 2 million people that travel through Billy Bishop I suppose they are all Leaving Toronto? I thoroughly support Porters growth and contribution to the community. Lake Ontario is a vast space, where there are many beautiful areas to Kayak that are not directly around or affected by the airport. If you want a peaceful place to Kayak, I suggest a little area called Muskoka not downtown Toronto.
Most of us do not have a place in Muskoka. We use Toronto’s waterfront and parks for our recreation.
Right, which is attached to a downtown metropolis.
As a suggestion, the south side of the islands would be great, Ashbridges bay, the bluffs, the rouge is supposed to be great kayaking, and the Humber. There are many perfect places to kayak that are not near the Airport if you feel the planes are too overwhelming you could make use of any of those.
Sarah Fulford does a great job of listing some of the wonderful developments that make our waterfront such a treasure. Too bad every one of them is threatened by Porter’s plans to grow a large international airport right in the middle of it . As the poet said, “you don’t know what you’ve got til its gone”. Marjorie Nichol
Completely agree. I remember when we were promised a waterfront park to replace the industries. Now one can’t even see the lake through the tangle of tall condo buildings. Their shadows cast us into darkness and the “park” has become a fringe of sidewalk, crowded with people. I also like Porter’s service- but as is, small and personable. No jets. No further traffic congestion. No more pollution, thanks. I live at King and Bathurst. You don’t have to be a professional activist to be opposed to the proposed expansion. You just have to be a resident with eyes open. And yes, there is a No Jets sign on my lawn. Save the Waterfront!
Don’t change the subject to condos junctiongirl. This is about airport expansion and the airport as is works. Expansion would be adverse. No one has skewed your words. You have said it all. At least 12 times “I” and “me” This is about Toronto. All of us. Not just you. Not about convenience.
Miller did not fail. Killing the bridge slowed the airport down considerably, we are only back at the 2003 threat 10 years later and our response must be the same; the community and waterfront come first. NO JETS.
Sarah fulford sips her latte on a rooftop terrace and wants the airport to expand for her convenience. How sad that in this day and age there is such unconsciousness to the environment and to the other people around. This is the Rob Ford of journalism.
Obviously don’t read the health reports that show dangerous levels of cancer, asthma, and heart disease. That’s just for the Board of Health and those “alarmists”. Ignore Waterfront Toronto and city staff and to heck with the millions of people who cherish the use of the waterfront each year. Why share the waterfront as we do now, when you can overpower it?!
If that is an “enthusiastic embrace” of urban life, it is a very selfish one.
Porter flies right over the Beach and Bluffs. the health report shows they have the highest rate of cancer on the whole waterfront. You keep saying move. that is your argument. Maybe tens of thousands of waterfront residents from Mimico to Bluffs should move for your convenience to hop a cheaper flight! Typical bully mentality.
I said, if I had a problem, I have a choice to move. And yet like it or not, I and many many people like me, have no issue with the airport. There is no bully mentality. As I stated before its a difference of opinion.
You seem to be implying that there is increased incidents of cancer in the beaches because of Porter airlines that has only been in existence for 6 years and does not fly directly over these areas. Also, a broad generalization because the instance of cancer by neighbourhood varies heavily on the type of cancer and socio-economic status. The heaviest area of hopitalization for cancer overall after 2009 is south Mississauga. Where there is no airport. You will also find, that most of the flight paths that travel directly over the city are indeed not from Porter. There are many factors that contribute to cancer rates in any given location and to imply that any one of these factors is the sole cause is irresponsible and misleading. Typical scare tactics.
Go Porter. Love your service and can hardly wait for you to get long range jets. Good luck you have my support.
I support Porter, Air Canada and their operations at Billy Bishop Airport; however, jets will really change the whole travel experience there and not for the better. The surrounding transportation infrastructure just doesn’t have the ability to handle the increase in automobile traffic that would come with more airport passengers. That is more of a threat than the jets are and would have a much bigger negative impact on the waterfront and downtown.
shame on Toronto Life. supporting the Airport is just plain ignorant. the comments below by others against it are mild compared to what I would write.