CATHEDRAL SQUARE - fictional piazza concept

CATHEDRAL SQUARE is an experiment that takes a huge blank canvas (Dalhousie/Shuter/Mutual Queen parking lot) and tries to create an immediate "place"
... unlike more traditional parks and amenities that may take years to mature into a sense of belonging.

The idea is create a gorgeous new urban square which would be animated by restaurants and retail...
and perhaps function as the climax to the "sculpture" route that has evolved in the neighbourhood.

Most of the density is stacked on Shuter Street, maintaining view corridors of
St. Mikes and glimpses of St. James to the south and the tower of the Metropolitan just to the west.


1. A few looks at the site (from Queen looking north):



2. Queen Street (south side):



3. SCALE (relative to Dundas Square):



4. MASSING:

this is the massing study that I did earlier (includes the existing study which appears to be 3 smallish towers in a park).
As you can see, the new square triangulates beautifully with NPS and Dundas Square.




5. SITEPLAN (each small square = 16' X 16'):



-------



5. RENDERING - I used a wide angle POV because it allows a great deal more detail to be communicated:

READ ME FIRST

Disney denied:

- if executed poorly, ala the ridiculously simple facades tacked on to the east side of the Eaton Centre, this square will fail.
It will be a short-term novelty.

Think of a Mozo/The Morgan/Market Square hybrid with dash of Georgian.

The hodge podge of faux historical styles at grade is actually critical to the square's success.
Modern, sculptural "sameness" looks great on a rendering (that's where I began) but with a footprint this large... it fails in the "welcome" department.

Given it's length, I even thought of carving the site into two connected squares, however that approach severely
compromised sunlight conditions for the northern half.

With the exception of the massive fountain/waterfall, most of the square remains a blank canvas and
can host a variety of events in good weather: music, art shows etc.


Expanding the existing footprint:
-Mutual street would be narrowed to 2 lanes and on-street parking elimated (hundreds of space provided under the square
- the service lane (Dalhousie) would actually weather-protected since the structure on the western side cantilevers over top of the lane.


Key elements:

-restaurants/cafes with solariums would encouraged to provide indoor and outdoor seasonal animation.
Given the weather/wind protection provided (particularly from the north), sunny winter days should be down right pleasant in the square

- the eastern Mutual street elevations only accomodate small, shallow shops (Starbucks etc.) and offices on the 2nd level.

-fountain/waterfall is built of laminated glass: a pyramid/obelisk emerges from a random crystalline mass (beautiful in winter too)
-stoop and scoop in effect

-a solar in-ground promenade leads to the fountain, powering night-time illumination and all in-ground lights. There is no overhead lighting
but the ambient light from the sculpture/fountain and surrounding retail will provide plenty of light in the evenings.

-solar umbrellas - capture the sun by providing shade (adjustable - "turn me to the sun")

-live/work lofts above the western retail

-hundreds of parking spaces below the square

SCROLL>>>>>>>>>>>>>>




--

6. Queen Street:

- something like this might be a fun way to "close" the square along Queen Street.

That's very striking. Having just been in Europe, it seems natural, but it's hard to even imagine something like that in Toronto. It'd be important that you convey the fact that it's public space to passing pedestrians. I think that, considering the size, it shouldn't be too difficult. Is the site really big enough for your design in the rendering?

that's fantastic, 3D....I wish we could really have exactly that here..

nice!

I certainly would not say no.

I have been waiting for this moment for months. First off, 3D, the render and the larger project look amazing - you should be very proud!

With regards to the project itself, I believe that your idea that an immediate sense of 'place' is exactly what this city needs. Too often we build in the center of a lot, or to one side of it, leaving the rest open to the sort of parks which will be nice in 10-15 years, once they have a chance to mature. However, those sorts of urban spaces often fail since they either fall into disrepair, don't receive appropriate patronage, or are simply boring and unattractive excuses for developers to get more height. While an open lot with a few precast concrete benches, some stubby, under-watered trees and yellowed grass does make an 'urban space' in the sense that condo brochures speak of, one would hardly want to travel there if not in the immediate area. Because you have massed the towers around the site, you have created a superb space where people will actually want to go. Furthermore, in doing so, you have addressed the one of the primary problems regarding urban design - the fact that (excluding UT-types) architects and planners have to make it worth the average person's time to travel anywhere. By creating a 'town square' you have opened up the opportunity for community and cultural development vis-a-vis open air concerts, art shows, multicultural events etc.

I also agree with your commentary about the cold, unforgiving nature of modernism. While it is sleek (and is also my preferred style), you are correct in your assessment that it can create harsh, sanitary environments. By juxtaposing several different architectural styles onto a small canvas, your plan forces the eye and mind into activity as they assess each building individually. By breaking the built forms down into smaller units (something which is also achieved in your varying roof heights), the larger mass of the whole plan seems to become more manageable and intimate. Also, because all of the buildings face each other a sense of community is engendered and enforced by residents who, in the simple act of living there, further the much desired sense of 'place.'

All in all, I have to say that this vision has surpassed my expectations and should be seriously considered for the future of this site...If only!


On a final note, which program do you use to create your renders? Both these ones and those in the "Scribbles and Musings" thread.

Thanks for the comments.

I really believe this is do-able. The litmus test is "would I go there?". The answer is yes. It feels like it belongs in Toronto, has a superb location that lends itself to the way the "old" and new co-operate and should remain a destination as long as the retail/restaurants etc. do their part. The square would feel more intimate than the wide-angle POV suggests, however this is still an enormous footprint (look at the scale comparison with Dundas Square) with plenty of sunlight and room to play (it's 160 feet wide at the narrowest point).

Sunday brunch in the square? Yes please.

Project End: all my scribbles are Photoshop.... a hundred or so layers of bits and bites blended together.

very european,toronto needs a real square like this.GOOD WORK 3D !

Looks great. As a former resident of the neighbourhood, I would have definitely supported this project.

Instead of building on the west side of the square though, why not appropriate and redevelop the existing buildings on Church? Then mid-block you could have something like this opening out onto MUC:

^it's a good idea but I was looking at this particular property because there is a single land-owner, presumably with the density opportunity to take on such an ambitious project in some form... and make a profit.... so the concept is slightly less than pie-in-the-sky.

And most importantly, I don't think we need another weather-enclosed galleria style development. For 9 months of the year this square could function as a terrific, sunbathed "outdoor" destination and the careful use of weather-protected retail ensures animation the rest of the time. Torontonians love to get outside asap and I have little doubt that tables and chairs will appear in the square in April (with a hat and scarf dress code in effect!!).

From a logistics POV... this project could be built with little or no disruption to the neighbourhood. An enormous chunk of private property, a stone's throw away from the city's spine. What an opportunity.

Indense: sorry, I misunderstood you... you were proposing an east/west link to Church Street, not a north/south galleria.

That sort of view corridor would of course be magnificient but as I mentioned above... I was looking at what could be done "without" expropriation, disruption to the neighbours etc. to minimize opposition... thus the single landowner approach.

In this scenario, maintaining the service lanes (Dalhousie) would be necessary to get buy in from existing businesses/residential on Church Street...

I suppose it could still be done by punching just one hole in the Church Street elevations, but then people would have to cross the Dalhousie service lanes into the square, dramatically diminishing the impact of your western "door".

Nice work 3D! Toronto definitely needs more squares. So do most Canadian cities come to think of it. You picked a challenging site because the surrounding buildings aren't very attractive, except on Queen, and it doesn't look like there's a lot of through pedestrian traffic already.

I'd do a couple things differently. Most of the pedestrian traffic is at the Queen St end, so I think more of the north side of the lot could be built on. You could get the same density with less height...and less neighbourhood opposition. A short east-west street connecting Mutual and Dalhousie could service the buildings between it and Shuter, increase the public feeling and security of the square, and bring vehicular activity to both ends. The other thing is I wouldn't "close" the Queen St side at all. You want that end to be as open as possible! There seems to be this idea in Toronto that you need a canopy or something to provide a sense of place and enclosure to a square, something I haven't seen in any other city. It's attractive, street-oriented surrounding buildings that provide the enclosure and a centrepiece of some sort that give it a sense of place. Your square has both - the fountain is awesome!

^thanks for the thoughtful feedback.

I agree that there is the possibility to use a much bigger residential footprint on the north end of the site (shorter, bulker buildings) because the site is so bloody long... 565 feet. But the scale of the square is important to create the kind of urban drama that will address your point about low pedestrian volumes.

In a nutshell, if the square itself becomes much smaller and the fountain is smaller and the sheer volume of public space is smaller.... then the potential as a stand-alone destination is smaller. It may become a "nice" place to visit as opposed to a must see place to visit.

I believe this kind of "urban drama" really does have that "if you build it they will come" potential. Not just the curious with a camera in tow... but other developers, retailers et al that will reinvigorate the whole area.

If you add up 600-800 on-site new homes that would be accomodated, the proposed rental tower behind the Metropolitan, the residents of Jazz.... this location has a certain amount of "head start" built in as a destination.

When word gets out.... I see a vibrant 7 day a week neighbourhood evolving with most of the pedestrian traffic coming from outside the neighbourhood.

As for opposition from neighbours... not to minimize the challenge/potential NIMBYism, but the neighbourhood is not exactly teeming with residents. This would be a powerful engine of change.

looks great.. wish this was a real proposal.

3Dementia said:

Indense: sorry, I misunderstood you... you were proposing an east/west link to Church Street, not a north/south galleria.

Click to expand...

Yes, that was the idea. I like the square itself and wouldn't want to cover it. I was just adding access from Church.

I also thought that you were eliminating Dalhousie except for a stub off of Shuter to service Jazz and your new buildings.