Toronto Ontario Square and Canada Square | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

junctionist said:
The problem with Canada Square is not that it's cheap or that it isn't flashy. It's that no one figured out why it should exist. It wasn't designed with success as a public space in mind. Parks and plazas that are built just to spare passersby from looking at an ugly concrete parking lot are often the worst. They're just ornamental, with no real practical purpose. They end up as dead spaces.

It doesn't Jane Jacobs to figure out there's something unpleasant about a public space that seems shunned by the public in its emptiness. It takes thought to create a successful public space that doesn't need planned events to be vibrant. It doesn't necessarily take a lot of money.
Click to expand...

This might be right in general, but as a critique of Canada Square it is way off base. People's objection is that it is too utilitarian and not ornamental enough.

In my view, it's too soon for all this hand wringing. I think the space is attractive, and it's a nice place to stop as we move through the area. Last summer I found it mostly well used and well programmed - Ontario Square too.

Mostly what it needs is time. With larger trees and more people, hence more uses for the space, I think it will work very well. After all, what does Union Square NY have that this park does not? A couple of equestrian statues? I doubt that's what matters. What I like about Union Square is that it has people, who are doing real things, amid a lot of greenery that is a welcome respite in the city. There is no reason that Canada Squae cannot soon be all those things.
 
88drums said:
These are pretty basic public spaces, no doubt about it. But let's be real for a sec: these are infill parks designed to cover a parking lot and complement the surrounding facilities. They were never going to be monumental. And, simple though they are, I certainly don't agree that they're all that cheap. They're just not flashy.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure why we would name these spaces for our province and our country if they are intended to be cheap, in-fill locations? The fact that they did sort of elevates our expectations. The end result just doesn't jibe.

k10ery said:
Mostly what it needs is time. With larger trees and more people, hence more uses for the space, I think it will work very well. After all, what does Union Square NY have that this park does not? A couple of equestrian statues? I doubt that's what matters. What I like about Union Square is that it has people, who are doing real things, amid a lot of greenery that is a welcome respite in the city. There is no reason that Canada Squae cannot soon be all those things.
Click to expand...

You're joking right? Union Square is located at one of the largest transit hubs in NYC, it has extremely urban surroundings and features quite formal design principles with a historic monument and an enormously popular urban market. The grassed parking lot covers that are Ontario/Canada Square have next to nothing in common .
 
Tewder said:
I'm not sure why we would name these spaces for our province and our country if they are intended to be cheap, in-fill locations? The fact that they did sort of elevates our expectations. The end result just doesn't jibe.
Click to expand...

Couldn't agree more with that. They should have quietly called these squares Harbourfront Park or something, and kept the whole package consistently ho-hum.

Maybe the lesson here is that we cherish sugar, whisky and cork more than our homeland :p
 
How can you compare this:

oleg-chursin-union_square_new_york_resized-1c1.jpg


To the mediocrity we got?
 
^I can compare them because they are both about the same size. And though Union Square is a great park and Canada Square is not (yet), the main difference I see in that picture is that Union Square has a lot more people. On the other hand, both have a bit of greenery, a bit of commerical, and a bit of programmed non-commercial use.

When I walk through Union Square, I'm often struck that there is nothing there I actually want to stop for. It's a great space in my view mostly because of the people. I think that Canada Square has the bones to be (somewhat) great in the same way, some day.
 
When you sit in Ontario Square, you feel like you're sitting in an empty parking lot, not a public square. And speaking of sitting, the benches there are not comfortable or attractive at all. You're basically sitting on concrete slabs with a piece of wood for the back. It's not stylish, charming or cool. It just looks and feels cheap. The benches at Sugar Beach are so much nicer, in every way.

I agree, if they wanted these areas to just cover the parking garage below and they were never intended to be anything inspiring or even special, why name them Canada/Ontario Square? Doesn't that imply something monumental just by the name? Why not just call it Harbourfront Square?

Nobody said these squares had to be something special. My original comment was just saying these squares are nothing special and are not very crowded on non-event days. That's just what I see when I walk by there. Of course, most people in that area, are going to want to sit on the boardwalk beside the lake. The only reason to come here is when the boardwalk is too crowded or they are programmed with an event. I think a cultural/retail building with some nice landscaping will be a much better use for this area.

Get rid of the names Canada/Ontario Square, that was a mistake from the beginning.
 
Last edited:
Another neat feature that was planned, the epic Simcoe statue/pedestal, fell victim to the Cheapening. Typical.
 
k10ery said:
^I can compare them because they are both about the same size. And though Union Square is a great park and Canada Square is not (yet), the main difference I see in that picture is that Union Square has a lot more people. On the other hand, both have a bit of greenery, a bit of commerical, and a bit of programmed non-commercial use.
Click to expand...

Well in that case Toronto is comparable to Rome because they both have sidewalks and some old buildings? Seriously, you need to look at the bigger picture. You can deconstruct the elements of Union Square all you want but they still come together in a way that is vastly different than Canada/Ontario square (ugh can we please change the name here at least?).
 
Towered said:
Another neat feature that was planned, the epic Simcoe statue/pedestal, fell victim to the Cheapening. Typical.
Click to expand...

I didn't know about that. But do we really need another Simcoe statue? If it had to be an old style monument I'd vote for a statue of Tecumseh. That guy was awesome! All he got from Toronto was some street signs, and they couldn't even spell his name right.
 
k10ery said:
This might be right in general, but as a critique of Canada Square it is way off base. People's objection is that it is too utilitarian and not ornamental enough.
Click to expand...

I'm confused as to why you're suggesting that, when it's clear that I'm right. With granite pavers, lush high-quality plantings and attractive lighting, there's nothing at all about the space that's cheap or overly utilitarian. For comparison, Nathan Phillips Square has poured concrete surfaces and basic lawns and trees. Canada Square looks good.

This space would be successful as a place to sit down and relax along one of Toronto's busy commercial strips which generally lack benches. That's one of the main reasons there are people in Union Square in that photo that Adjei posted. They're sitting on the steps and benches. But Canada Square is redundant as a place to sit down next to the water's edge promenade. There's little other utility to the square besides its redundant seating--I'd say the utility is too low.

The reason why a fountain would help is that a fountain would offer something novel and unique to attract visitors. The sound of moving water can be quite relaxing. People also like touching water in fountains if it's clean and to cool off if there's some mist. It could be a cheap and generic fountain, but if it gave people an experience they enjoyed, they would stop and linger. That's the mark of a successful public space. A restaurant or cafe would probably help it succeed too. But there isn't much reason to go there on an ordinary day.
 
k10ery said:
I didn't know about that. But do we really need another Simcoe statue? If it had to be an old style monument I'd vote for a statue of Tecumseh. That guy was awesome! All he got from Toronto was some street signs, and they couldn't even spell his name right.
Click to expand...

How about Joseph Brant?
 
junctionist said:
I'm confused as to why you're suggesting that, when it's clear that I'm right. With granite pavers, lush high-quality plantings and attractive lighting, there's nothing at all about the space that's cheap or overly utilitarian. For comparison, Nathan Phillips Square has poured concrete surfaces and basic lawns and trees. Canada Square looks good.
Click to expand...

I'm sort of coming round to your and others' thinking here. The part I find utilitarian is the northern part of Canada Square, obviously, and Ontario Square too. I found them both to be well programmed and mostly populated last summer.

Canada Square proper, to the south: I like it. I's like to think that the natural beauty and a break from the busier areas around will be enough to draw people in, once the trees are grown and the foot traffic is up. But maybe not - maybe it's too sterile. Either way, I do think it needs more benches though
 
Tewder said:
How about Joseph Brant?
Click to expand...

Well I like the general philosophy. Indians on top of the plinth, white folks looking up adoringly from below ...

But Brant got a good deal from the British government, which Tecumseh surely did not. (Brant also has a statue in Brantford and another in Ottawa, come to think of it.) And I think Brant was almost surely one of the largest slave owners in the history of Ontario! Bit of mixed messaging there.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top