Toronto Ripley's Aquarium of Canada | 13.11m | 2s | Ripley Entertainment | B+H

I'm not concerned, especially since this will only be a 3 storey building. The denser the better in my mind, because the more "things" in the area, the more "things" for tourists to do.
 
Northern Magus said:
It wouldn't at all surprise me if this accelerates Fairmont's development plans for the very reasons you give.

Personally, I'd favour a bigger aquarium built on the vacant lot at Queen's Quay and Rees. I think an aquarium at this location would do more for the waterfront as it would not only draw people to the crown jewel the city's trying to create, but it would also help spread out the pedestrian traffic along QQ (which looks to be fairly concentrated between QQ Terminal and Harbourfront Centre, especially with the impending addition of Canada Square).
Click to expand...

Yes, that big parking lot on Queens Quay West, just in front of Skydome, would be perfect. Not only would it take out another parking lot but it would be the perfect height to give the waterfront some charecter and yet it won't block out the iconic presence of Skydone on Toronto's skyline. It would bring the Harbourfront crowds west and be a perfect backdrop to the wave deck and the redevelopment of Queens Quay. The plot of land is large enough for a major aquarium with underground parking and it's owned by the city too. That would be a perfect location in every way. Now if only our politicians had common sense.
 
I'm in total agreement. If not an aquarium, hopefully some sort of important civic institution will fill that lot one day.
 
That lot is owned by Harbourfront Centre, is it not?

Since I live right beside that lot, I pass by it often and I also wonder why the underground parking lot that they will be building at Canada Square isn't moved to this location. Considering the Dome next door, it would be a cash cow, plus release them of the problem of people having to turn into a parking facility on the south side of the street once the conversion to two lanes takes place.


I'd like to think Harbourfront Centre has plans for that swath of land. It's probably of the most valuable pieces of land in the city.
 
Here are my notes from last night's public meeting; and there will be at least one more public meeting in a few months to discuss issues that were raised last night:

· Ripley plans to have Phase 1 open April 2013.

· The re-zoning application is needed in order to determine if an aquarium use is permitted since right now it reads as commercial use only; clearly an aquarium satisfies the commercial use designation, and since the City is happy with the reduced size of the project massing, etc…then it’s pretty much a done deal (notwithstanding the animal rights/welfare concerns, which the City has no jurisdiction over, and that they are Provincial and National matters).

· Phase 1 will be approx. 95,931 ft; Phase 2 at 53,821 ft and will be added at a later date while Phase 1 operates normally; and CLC will develop Phase 2A at 46,286 ft and it will be a mixed-use multi-level building with retail & restaurant.

· Ripley is seeking to land lease, design, build and manage the project.

· Ripley’s other 2 aquariums in the USA are debt free and financially secure.

· Ripley’s application is considerably lower than the as of right condition GFA equal to about 386,000 ft, which originally outlined a building envelope that would wrap ¾ around the CN Tower. This multi-phase application is much preferred.

· There’s no on-site parking request; however there’s a comprehensive multi-party bus management plan between applicant, Roger’s Centre, and MTCC….they anticipate heavy school bus traffic to the site.

· There are 3,200 public parking spaces within 300m of site, and further 2,000 spaces from 300m-450m.

· No escalators or elevators will be used; use of gradient flooring/ramping and the front entrance (southwest corner) will be vision glass.

· Roof of building will be at same elevation of Gardiner Expressway and will not be a green roof, but rather the preferred white roof (primarily for future large commercial and institutional uses).

· Estimate 1.5 million annual visits; with no real seasonal peaks like the CN Tower.

· Members of the public/residents of Ward 20 expressed concerns with size of signage on building & roof, poor integration of building into the community, not enough green space, too much use of glass and concrete, etc….many were opposed to the whole notion of allowing an aquarium in the City due to animal welfare concerns….Ripley’s stated that they would not include marine mammals in this exhibit and that the educational angle would be paramount to the success of the project…it’s not just a tourist attraction making money.
 
Power to the People!
 
^ Thanks for the update. I was unable to make it but I was really curious how it turned out.
 
Thanks Bauhaus for providing the details. To add a few more points:

- They are looking into continuing PATH, potentially through the building (probably part of Phase 2)

- There were concerns for the blank, bulky east side that would be adjacent to the MTCC driveway. A screen wall is being considered to alleviate this

- The reason given for not having an aquarium on the waterfront is because of the lack of stability of the 'fill' required to build on. Because of the immense pressure the water in the tanks exert on the building's floor and structural elements, they would have to dig very deep to reach bedrock to provide the required support if it was at the waterfront.
 
Notwithstanding the many details of the proposal....I found the building to be bland & very unwelcoming, and I hope they come to the next meeting with a 'real' submission. Considering these are the lands at the foot of the mighty CN Tower, then they'd better rethink their project. Many in the audience commented on how the proposed building didn't fit into the neighbourhood, which if you consider its neighbours (CN Tower, Rogers Centre, Roundhouse, and MTCC) then they should really think hard & long about what they want to do, and make sure it's a legacy buidling.
 
1) Ripley's should not be in charge of designing it.

2) There should be a green roof. 'Nuff said.
 
I asked at the meeting if the application is subject to the greenroof by-law. It is not because the application was filed before January 31,2010. Nonetheless, they said because of the nature of the building, a green roof is not possible. Any leak in the roof can lead to serious issues with the aquatic life as the water in the tanks needs to be at specific temperatures, pH levels, etc. It was said 'white roofs' are preferred for larger structures. I am not familiar with the various aspects of white roofs so I am not sure what is better. I think their reasoning is based on costs and costs alone. Leaks can happen in any roof system, and steps can be taken to add extra protection to avoid leaks. I did not buy into the proponents and Adam Vaughan's arguments. AV loved the mention the urban heat island effect buildings have, and that these white roofs are better than green roofs. if anyone actually knows more about white roofs some more details is welcomed.
 
I buy the "leakage" excuse. If they're going to do a white roof instead, I'm okay with it.

Also, I think we all forget about just how artificial the waterfront is. I hadn't considered the weight of the building and its contents and how that would react with the soil.

What did Vaughn have to say about the design of the building? did he think it was up to par?
 
I'm skeptical about white roofs. If this was Atlanta sure, but this is Toronto and frankly we spend a good part of the year trying to heat, not cool our buildings. So in a way you could argue we should have a black roof policy and encourage heat island effect in our environment. Heat island effect is negative because in much of the US (and actually here for a few weeks of the year) the energy use profile peaks during summer cooling season. Considering this project is located a stones throw away from the enwave lake water cooling pump-house I don't think summer cooling concerns are best addressed by painting the roof white.
 
jn_12 said:
What did Vaughn have to say about the design of the building? did he think it was up to par?
Click to expand...

I don't recall him saying yay or nay to the design. It seemed he was generally supportive of the project. The architect kept saying the design is still evolviing and they are dealing with concerns that are being brought up. I don't expect many changes from what was presented. I personally find the design to be 'meh'. The front (southwest corner) is ok, but the further east along the south wall it gets banal and the ass end is pretty bad, like the Four Season's Centre. The screen wall they are suggesting better be somewhat attractive otherwise walking west from Simcoe along Bremner all you will see is this blank concrete/aluminum/whatever-the-heck-cladding wall.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top