Building on Toronto’s waterfront plus other letters, June 23: ‘What do all great cities in the world have in common?’

Open this photo in gallery:

If you build it

Re “Toronto’s future is on the waterfront” (June 19): Contributors Richard Florida, author of a report supported by Therme Group Canada, and Joe Berridge argue that the waterfront should be “highlighting Toronto’s contributions to the world.”

Ontario Place was built to showcase Ontario’s contributions with architect Eb Zeidler’s Cinesphere (the world’s first IMAX theatre, an Ontario technology) and pods, landscape architect Michael Hough’s forest and Eric McMillan’s Children’s Village that featured one of the world’s earliest ball pits.

A megaspa almost identical to Therme’s spas around the world does not showcase our innovation. It’s a huge gift of public parkland and a $1-billion taxpayer subsidy, plus continuing maintenance costs, to an Austrian spa company.

The megaspa should not be called an iconic attraction like the Sydney Opera House or Chicago’s Field Museum. Touting a project that destroys a rare ecosystem on Toronto’s waterfront is more of a disservice to the generations of Ontarians that will be subsidizing Therme’s spa.

Chris Glover NDP MPP, Spadina-Fort York Toronto

Contributor Joe Berridge and Richard Florida are bang on: Upgrade Toronto’s waterfront. These things go in waves – pun intended.

When sufficient infrastructure is in place, the time for more texture arrives. And so we have an opportunity to extend ourselves and our city.

Remember the debate over SkyDome? Now it’s time for the next suite of initiatives.

Thanks for setting the stage here.

Peter Ferguson Grey Highlands, Ont.

I couldn’t agree more about the need to accelerate the revitalization of Toronto’s waterfront. But I part company with solutions such as the Therme spa.

It has been suggested that our waterfront lacks a coherent and compelling character. Overlooked is the potential to connect with powerful and unique images of the Canadian wilderness.

What if we aimed to make the compelling character of our waterfront the experience of Muskoka or Georgian Bay in the city? Most residents and visitors will never get to the wilder parts of Ontario, yet here we are, on the edge of Lake Ontario, with the potential to approach that experience.

The city’s central core already has the Toronto Islands, Tommy Thompson Park, Trillium Park and soon the new mouth of the Don River. Why do others not see how preferable extending that narrative would be, compared with inserting a suburban drive-in spa on the waterfront?

Cynthia Wilkey Toronto

It is stated that the prime value of the waterfront is to have buildings: museums, art galleries and cultural icons.

Yes, these are great institutions. But they do not need to be on the waterfront. Like Therme’s spa, these can be situated anywhere in the city and still attract economic activity.

The waterfront may be “critical to the economic revitalization of our city,” but how about being critical to the health and wellness of the community? The only “bigger and bolder” response required would be embracement and appreciation of one of the largest freshwater lakes in the world.

Sharon Purdy Toronto

Re “Ontario Place needs to be opened up to the city as a park” (June 20): What do all great cities in the world have in common? Beautiful and numerous parks that are accessible to all.

Kathleen McPhie Oakville, Ont.

Animal control

Re “Trashed” (Letters, June 15): A letter-writer suggests a control program for “destructive” creatures called raccoons.

I am reminded of a conversation several years ago with an Alberta biologist, who suggested a similar measure in part because of their “invasiveness” and threats to nesting ground birds. Forgotten is that raccoons are not invasive, their appearance in Canada resulting from natural migration northward.

Surely we have moved on from the medieval idea that anything hindering humanity is worthy of elimination. This has nothing to do with “cuteness.” Racoons are part of the natural world shared with us humans, arguably the most destructive creatures on the planet.

Embarking on a raccoon control program would be unworthy, unnecessary and unacceptable.

John Nightingale Ottawa

Best coast

Re “Build the cities of the future” (Editorial, June 17): You refer to Vancouver being, in 1955, a “remote outpost.”

I hardly think it deserves either the adjective or the noun, as the year before it was the venue for the Commonwealth Games.

Christopher Kelk Toronto

Meet the letter-writers

Throughout the late spring and summer, The Globe will feature personal insights and missives from some of our most frequent contributors every Sunday in Letters to the Editor. Survey responses were collected as a part of the research behind A Nation’s Paper: The Globe and Mail in the Life of Canada, a collection of history essays from Globe writers past and present, coming this fall from Signal/McClelland & Stewart.

(The following responses were received by The Globe after a call for submissions in May, 2023.)

It was during the pandemic, and columnist André Picard had written the most evocative piece about staying safe, following the rules and doing our bit to not infect each other (”The Best Christmas Gift? Not Infecting Others” – Dec. 21, 2021). I was so discouraged about the future, and his words resonated with me, as if he was sitting across from me and telling me things were going to be okay.

I was so touched that the next day you published my very personal response, and that you gave it what I consider to be the place of honour: the last letter.

I tend to stay away from anything controversial. I just want to play with words, make a point, maybe even entertain Globe readers.

I spend a lot of time writing and revising before sending. There have been letters I spent time on and then didn’t send, because I felt it was too pointed or snarky. That’s not my style.

Jean Mills Guelph, Ont.

I’m a political junkie, so I closely follow both domestic and international news. If I see an article or letter that I strongly disagree with, it makes me a bit irritated. And when I’m irritated, I get eloquent and the writing starts to flow.

I am quite competitive, so I see Letters to the Editor as a daily countrywide competition. I think there is perhaps more pessimism and frustration in letters published than 20 years ago. We seem to have been going backward since 2016, and of course the war in Ukraine makes the overall mood pretty bleak.

I enjoy reading the letters every day because they give me a good pulse on the mood of the country. I do see the occasional letter and wondered whether you published it because you thought it was a good letter, or whether you were stirring the pot to provoke a discussion.

Adam Plackett Toronto

I am a bit of a contrarian and my children jokingly (I hope) call me “an angry old man.”

I believe that The Globe has a general policy that if a letter is published, you do not publish another one from the same contributor for 30 days. Although I can understand the reasons behind this decision, I am disappointed at times because I have written what I consider to be a letter of significant merit, which isn’t published.

Then again, I would be the first to admit I am somewhat biased that all my letters are “outstanding.”

Michael Gilman Toronto

Letters to the Editor should be exclusive to The Globe and Mail. Include your name, address and daytime phone number. Keep letters to 150 words or fewer. Letters may be edited for length and clarity. To submit a letter by e-mail, click here: letters@globeandmail.com