[BeaverFever]

We're not talking about the exact corner where you live, the area around you has a lot of commercial establishments, offices, etc.
[/quote]

The commercial area is north of Front Street and the Gardiner....not really that close by. Queen's Quay is not an "commercial industrial zone".

$1:

The area is mass-packed with high-density residential.

Exactly! How are the roads going to handle all that added airport traffic? They barely handle the local traffic now, and many days it's total gridlock all along Queens Quay and Lakeshore. You think air travellers are going to magically teleport to/from the island?

$1:

The airport was there long before the place you live was likely built

Jets never were there and transcontinental flights never were there. In fact, they have always been explicitly BANNED from the island airport under the Tripartite Agreement between the Feds, Province and City that governs the airport. It's always been a sleepy little airport with the odd puddle-jumper or cargo flight until Porter came along. Again I like porter and I tolerate the increased inconvenience currently because IMO its worth it but there are limits.

Look, I can't appeal to your decency because when it comes to other people's quality of life, you care little. So let me appeal to your capitalistic nature. What about the condo owners and property developers who invested (Millions in the case of the latter)in the residential developments that along Queens Quay and directly adjacent to the airport? Should they be compensated for their lost investment, given that the city enticed them to invest and develop the waterfront barely a decade ago and now reverses the jet ban and destroys the property value?

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Exactly! How are the roads going to handle all that added airport traffic? They barely handle the local traffic now, and many days it's total gridlock all along Queens Quay and Lakeshore. You think air travellers are going to magically teleport to/from the island?

How did the area handle all the new residential units? I wonder if the older condo people were upset like you are at the thought of more traffic in the area?

The Airport is going to grow. You're fighting the inevitable.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Again I like porter and I tolerate the increased inconvenience currently because IMO its worth it but there are limits.

But you moved in beside an airport. The airport didn't move in beside you.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Look, I can't appeal to your decency because when it comes to other people's quality of life, you care little. So let me appeal to your capitalistic nature. What about the condo owners and property developers who invested (Millions in the case of the latter)in the residential developments that along Queens Quay and directly adjacent to the airport? Should they be compensated for their lost investment, given that the city enticed them to invest and develop the waterfront barely a decade ago and now reverses the jet ban and destroys the property value?

I do care about people's quality of life. I just don't care for people moving to an area with existing facilities and get bent out of shape at the slightest change. Growing up in the Beach, it was funny to hear people bitch and moan about more streetcars as the noise was just terrible.

You suggest that increasing the size and traffic of the airport will decrease property values yet I'd bet that since Porter has been thriving, property values in your area are up hand-over-fist.

So if you're suggesting that property values would decrease because the type of planes are different (yet make the same or less noise that the current planes) I think you'd be way off base and would be another person with a case of NIMBY'ism.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

How did the area handle all the new residential units? I wonder if the older condo people were upset like you are at the thought of more traffic in the area?

Almost all of the Queens Quay condos went up around the same time in the 1990s and early 2000's as part of a large-scale development plan for the area. The city put in a streetcar line to encourage development and handle the traffic.

$1:

But you moved in beside an airport. The airport didn't move in beside you....I just don't care for people moving to an area with existing facilities and get bent out of shape at the slightest change.

I also moved into a condo with a dog in the next unit. Doesn't mean it's ok for the neighbour to have the by-laws changed and bring a heard of cattle in 'since I knew he had animals'. Bringing the jets in is a major change, not a minor development, one that in fact requires the airline to lobby 3 different levels of government to change laws that specifically and purposely prohibit jets for this very reason

$1:

You suggest that increasing the size and traffic of the airport will decrease property values yet I'd bet that since Porter has been thriving, property values in your area are up hand-over-fist.

Nope. They haven't gone down, but they haven't gone up more than is normal for downtown Toronto. Plus Pearson is only 20 minutes away (in clear traffic anyway). I don't think there's a neighbourhood on this planet where being directly adjacent to an airport has improved values. And I'm sure they're not doing anything good for the property on the Island itself, since the whole point of living on a island that doesn't allow cars and is only accessible by ferry is to not be near to things.

$1:

So if you're suggesting that property values would decrease because the type of planes are different (yet make the same or less noise that the current planes) I think you'd be way off base and would be another person with a case of NIMBY'ism.

Well given that the plane has yet to be flown, there's no guarantee how quiet it will actually be. If you look at the Bombardier website, you'll notice a disclaimer at the bottom of the site that says "all specifications and data are approximate, may change without notice, and are subject to operating rules, assumptions, and other conditions". This is common in aviation. We shouldn't be changing laws based on the seller's unproven "approximations and assumptions" of performance that are subject to change without notice. I'm excited for the C-Series program and wish it success, but not at the island airport.

As for NIMBYism, I'll be moving out of the area in a months time, so I'm not worried about the impact on me personally.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Almost all of the Queens Quay condos went up around the same time in the 1990s and early 2000's as part of a large-scale development plan for the area. The city put in a streetcar line to encourage development and handle the traffic.

And they're still building in the area, traffic will only get worse.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Doesn't mean it's ok for the neighbour to have the by-laws changed and bring a heard of cattle in 'since I knew he had animals'. Bringing the jets in is a major change, not a minor development, one that in fact requires the airline to lobby 3 different levels of government to change laws that specifically and purposely prohibit jets for this very reason

It's OK as long as they go through the proper channels and have it approved. It's not a major change, it just has some red tape as as long as all 3 are on board...you know Ford and Harper will push it though, they just need the Province.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Nope. They haven't gone down, but they haven't gone up more than is normal for downtown Toronto. Plus Pearson is only 20 minutes away (in clear traffic anyway).

20 minutes? Perhaps on a Sunday morning at 2am.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don't think there's a neighbourhood on this planet where being directly adjacent to an airport has improved values. And I'm sure they're not doing anything good for the property on the Island itself, since the whole point of living on a island that doesn't allow cars and is only accessible by ferry is to not be near to things.

But your condo has increased in value despite the airport and it's growth. How do you explain that?

I'd also bet that those condo's were built and sold awful quick despite planes flying right beside it.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Well given that the plane has yet to be flown, there's no guarantee how quiet it will actually be. If you look at the Bombardier website, you'll notice a disclaimer at the bottom of the site that says "all specifications and data are approximate, may change without notice, and are subject to operating rules, assumptions, and other conditions". This is common in aviation. We shouldn't be changing laws based on the seller's unproven "approximations and assumptions" of performance that are subject to change without notice. I'm excited for the C-Series program and wish it success, but not at the island airport.

No, we should be changing laws based on what's best for the City as a whole along with the economy, not just what's best for people living in condo's the bought next to an airport.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

And they're still building in the area, traffic will only get worse.

Exactly. But the new streetcars are coming soon.

$1:

It's OK as long as they go through the proper channels and have it approved.

Well, you could say that about any law. I'm not saying Porter is doing something illegal, I'm saying that changing the law in this case is a bad idea. Just because someone is going through the proper steps to change the law doesn't mean opposition to the change is unjustified.

$1:

It's not a major change, it just has some red tape

You sound as if you think jets are currently excluded from the airport by administrative oversight. The TPA specifically says no jets because of concerns for the impact on the neighbourhood. And it will have a significant impact on the neighbourhood, both in terms of noise and traffic flow. Hence,it's a major change.

$1:

you know Ford and Harper will push it though, they just need the Province.

Yep.

$1:

20 minutes? Perhaps on a Sunday morning at 2am.

As I said, in clear traffic. I've done it at 8 pm on a Friday night via Gardner and 427.

$1:

But your condo has increased in value despite the airport and it's growth. How do you explain that?

As I said, I don't think the current Porter operations are significantly impacting the neighbourhood. All downtown Toronto property values go up. That doesn't mean that exponentially increasing the traffic volume and noise levels will be negligible.

$1:

I'd also bet that those condo's were built and sold awful quick despite planes flying right beside it.

Porter wasn't operating back then, it was just a sleepy airport with a few flights per day until Porter started up.

$1:

No, we should be changing laws based on what's best for the City as a whole along with the economy, not just what's best for people living in condo's the bought next to an airport.

I don't think it's best for the city as a whole. It ruins the waterfront for tourists and residents alike. The waterfront could/should be developed into the city's centrepiece and the jewel in its crown, not returned to its ugly, noisy, utilitarian industrial past. I don't see how it would benefit the economy. New jobs would be minimal, while gridlock in the Lakeshore/Gardiner area, already abysmal at times, would increase substantially, which would cost the economy.

[OnTheIce]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Porter wasn't operating back then, it was just a sleepy airport with a few flights per day until Porter started up.

And yet, despite Porter, condo's are going up along the waterfront at levels we've never seen before.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don't think it's best for the city as a whole. It ruins the waterfront for tourists and residents alike. The waterfront could/should be developed into the city's centrepiece and the jewel in its crown, not returned to its ugly, noisy, utilitarian industrial past.

Was that you or David Miller talking? The same David Miller that was all about the waterfront, yet under his rule, Toronto's waterfront became condo-central.

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don't see how it would benefit the economy. New jobs would be minimal, while gridlock in the Lakeshore/Gardiner area, already abysmal at times, would increase substantially, which would cost the economy.

But there's new streetcars, right? Surely that'll help with any increased traffic.

I find it odd that you have no issue with jamming thousands upon thousands of people high-density residential units but have a real issue with occasional spikes in activity from travelers.

Perhaps some further changes to the transit system in that area are required.

[BeaverFever]

$1:

And yet, despite Porter, condo's are going up along the waterfront at levels we've never seen before.

The ones closet to the island airport were built for a long time and those that went up most recently a little further back were already holes in the ground when Porter started operations. AGAIN - just because porter's Q400 operations to date haven't been overly disruptive, doesn't mean that exponentially increasing airport volume and jet traffic won't be.

$1:

Was that you or David Miller talking? The same David Miller that was all about the waterfront, yet under his rule, Toronto's waterfront became condo-central.

Miller was elected in 2003. The Queens Quay condo boom occurred under Lastman. In fact, Miller's legacy is the establishment of Waterfront Toronto and the redevelopment of the QQ condoland and the waterfront in general into a more attractive and economically viable recreational area. HTO Park, Sherbourne Commons, Corus Quay, Sugar Beach, all successes from the Miller Era. And Miller sat on the board of Waterfront Toronto during his term as Mayor so he did have personal responsibility for the results.

$1:

But there's new streetcars, right? Surely that'll help with any increased traffic.

Given that the Porter announcement is new, one can figure that it wasn't factored in transit contracts tendered years ago. And although some air travellers will haul their suitcases and screaming kids onto the TTC, 99% will come by cab or shuttle. Rarely do I see anyone dragging a suitcase down the foot of Bathurst street.

$1:

I find it odd that you have no issue with jamming thousands upon thousands of people high-density residential units

No, city centres are meant to be densely inhabited, and the infrastructure that is required to support those residents should not be needlessly overwhelmed,and the resident's needs should not come second to the superficial whims of out-of-towners.

$1:

but have a real issue with occasional spikes in activity from travelers.

The projected increase to 250 takeoff/landing slots per day is not "occasional." What we currently have is occasional spikes due to TFC games at BMO field, events on Exhibition grounds, ACC or Rogers Centre, overflow from gridlock on the Gardiner, and sometimes all of the above.

$1:

Perhaps some further changes to the transit system in that area are required.

This is Toronto, that is always a given regardless of the airport's future.