Toronto Corus Quay | ?m | 8s | Waterfront Toronto | Diamond Schmitt

Fantastic news from today's Star:

-

Group pulls funding, says best parts of building plans gone
Dec 08, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume
Urban issues columnist

In the first test of its commitment to architectural excellence, Waterfront Toronto has made it clear it will accept no substitutes.

The occasion came yesterday when the Waterfront Design Review Panel recommended the agency withdraw its support for the $150-million headquarters the Toronto Economic Development Corporation is building for Corus Entertainment.

The board endorsed the panel decision unanimously and withdrew $9 million of its $12.5 million contribution to the project until new designs are submitted and approved. Most of the budget, $132 million, will come from the city in the form of a loan to TEDCO.

The concrete-and-glass structure, at the foot of Jarvis St. on Lake Ontario, will be the first constructed under the aegis of Waterfront Toronto (formerly the Toronto Waterfront Development Corp.).

Panel members have had issues with the design since it was presented last February. Though changes were made, improvements added and conditional approval granted, panel chair Bruce Kuwabara said they weren't enough.

"There was much discussion and a huge amount of disappointment," Kuwabara told the waterfront board yesterday. "The things that were interesting are gone. We cannot support this project."

Specifically, the panel was concerned about the much-reduced public nature of the atrium, especially the elimination of a striking egg-shaped conference room, as well as the preponderance of loading bays and loss of roof terraces. The panel was also worried the materials have been downgraded; in one instance, pre-cast concrete pillars have replaced black granite columns. The big criticism was that the building would do little to enhance the skyline or the waterfront.

TEDCO president Jeff Steiner countered that many of the panel's concerns were based on misunderstandings, but insisted the building would be improved.

"We will make all the changes that are possible," he said. "But we need better clarity from the panel."

Mayor David Miller, a Waterfront Toronto board member, was clearly unimpressed by what he saw. It was he who introduced the motion that upheld the panel's decision.

"If it's not done with design excellence," Miller declared, "it won't work. What Waterfront Toronto did today was to say that you have to achieve design excellence."

Chris Glaisek, Waterfront Toronto's vice-president of planning and design, was elated. "I'm thrilled we got to this point," he said. "It's incredibly significant that the board supported the panel."

Waterfront Toronto president and CEO John Campbell agreed. "It's critical that the board has expressed its support for the panel. It reinforces the need for great architecture on the waterfront."

But time is short; excavation has started and TEDCO wants to begin construction as soon as possible. Though the city has granted TEDCO a foundation permit, it has yet to approve the site plan. Given the mayor is on the waterfront board, that's unlikely to happen until the panel likes what it sees.

Steiner remained adamant, however, that all would end well.

"They'll all say it's a fantastic building," he argued. "Its role is to play a buffer to Redpath Sugar (just west). It's a beautiful building. It's a real building. But it's not the public building everybody wanted."

Steiner was referring to earlier speculation that the site might be the location of a major cultural facility, rather than a corporate office. "We are reviewing TEDCO's mandate," said Miller, concerned, perhaps, that the deal could cost taxpayers a lot more and deliver a lot less than promised.
Click to expand...
 
Very interesting news...this project has been a dog from the get-go...
 
Holy crap! That's amazing news!

Shouldn't this put Jack Diamond to shame? Having his work torn to pieces in front of the public should humble him a little. Why oh why wasn't there a design panel during the construction of the Four Seasons Centre.

Maybe these pains will caution future potential clients who will choose not to use Diamond & Shitt.

This building needs to go back to the drawing board and start from scratch. Can we get a new architect?
 
The panel was also worried the materials have been downgraded; in one instance, pre-cast concrete pillars have replaced black granite columns.
Click to expand...

Whew... dodged the bullet. How about a bill that bans precast concrete pillars altogether? We really need to stop accepting junkitecture in this city.
 
This is great news, not just because a poor project was stopped before it could inflict its harm, but because it demonstrates the power of the design review panel.

And yes, we would probably have a lot less blank walls on the FSC if a design review panel was involved.
 
I hope this doesn't come acros as an uninformed question...but is there a possibility that Tedco still has enough funds to go along with this and therefore this decision to take away some funding will actually make the building SHITTIER?
 
^Not if the city hasn't approved the site plan. Though I'm not really clear on how the city can give them a foundation permit without site plan approval.
 
It's interesting to see Mr. Victoria Jackman's conflict of interest on such public display, and his role in this decision makes it a textbook example of bad decision making by a government agency. It's so easily challenged as to be completely worthless. I'd anticipate a reversal in due course.
 
The question arises once again however why is the City of Toronto in the development industry in the first place? So is this a victory of the system or another symptom of its larger problems?
 
TrickyRicky:

The City involving itself in the development business is not necessarily a right (or wrong) thing to do - that's a values proposition (vis-a-vis the role of the government). What is problematic is when you have conflicts between the different governmental instiutions and conflict of interest within the varies parties themselves (i.e. Mayor vs. TEDCO vs. council, etc.).

AoD
 
AndreaPalladio said:
It's interesting to see Mr. Victoria Jackman's conflict of interest on such public display, and his role in this decision makes it a textbook example of bad decision making by a government agency. It's so easily challenged as to be completely worthless. I'd anticipate a reversal in due course.
Click to expand...


Who is Mr. Victoria Jackman? What is the conflict?


If there is a conflict, it seems to be between those who want to do things and those that want to naval gaze at taxpayers expense. Isn't this the first project to emerge after 5 years of the TWRC?
 
Mr. Victoria Jackman's panel complains that, "the eighth floor penthouse, which established the distinctive stepping terraces called for in the approved East Bayfront precinct plan, has been eliminated" ... but those terraces had already disappeared by the June 13th plan, and by the April 10th plan before it, both of which plans they apparently approved. As Fair Comment points out, there's not much difference between the June and November renderings, other than the "bean" becoming a "has-bean".
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top