News   Nov 12, 2024
16 Storey Tower Proposal South of Warden Station Grows to 27 Storeys
 862     1 
News   Nov 12, 2024
News Roundup for November 12, 2024
 570     1 
News   Nov 12, 2024
Financial Core Nightlights
 683     0 

CATHEDRAL SQUARE - fictional piazza concept

Amazing and mouth-watering rendering, to be certain. I'd take it as is.

One thing I'd want to see would be licensed patio spaces in the square. I always thought Dundas Square would be a great place to imbibe and people watch, if it were up to me I would close off the small "Dundas Square Street" and let Hard Rock and anyone else open up big huge drinking patios there. Would be marvellous.

And I can so easily imagine myself passing some time on Queen East in this square.

Great work.
 
Amazing work! Imagine my disappointment when I figured out that this wasn't an actual new project announcement.

This type of planning and these sorts of spaces are truly what make a city great. Just think of how beautiful this would look in spring with blossoming trees, or in Christmas with (hopefully) interesting and (non-blue) holiday lighting. It could be a real destination.

Have you tried your hand at envisioning a 'Soho Square' project for Queen West?...
 
Really appreciate all the positive feedback... but it's bittersweet for sure. As has been pointed out, this idea will likely never see the light of day (though I plan to send it off to the landowner and area planner just for the hell of it).

I was aiming to create something that "just feels right" for Toronto and it appears to have succeeded. It reminds us there are plenty of local references and textures available to create urban spaces that really belong in the city without feeling unwelcoming or artificial... despite the fact that this entire design is in fact "artificial" (ie. built from scratch).

I think this "feel" is often the missing ingredient in planning. Traffic and transit patterns, shadowing and wind studies, massing and densities... these issues are all put under the magnifying glass. But too often the end product just fills a space in the grid without engaging the rest of us who live here.

The great thing about working on a fictional concept is you can hire yourself for every job: owner, planner, architect... even commission yourself to create the art! BTW, the fountain/waterfall is my favourite conceit.... the coherent shape emerging from chaos speaks to me of Toronto.

Here's a close-up for your amusement:

CATHcu.jpg
 
Nicely done 3D!

A couple of quick thoughts upon just starting to digest the idea:

1) I am reminded of Urban Shocker's call for a Facade District, where the best of the city's doomed older buildings could have their facades (literally) removed to and reassembled: this would be the perfect place to do it.

An example of one of those buildings is one that is shortly to fall to make way for 1 Bloor East:

fo1257%5Cser1057%5Cf1257_s1057_it0052.jpg


I'd like to see the facade of the building furthest along to the south transported to your square - love that third floor window - and there must be others deserving of further longevity whose time is being threatened right now by 'progress'.

My own inclination is not to build 'instant old' in this city (or anywhere really): faux historic architecture nearly never succeeds. You may have entitled one of your points Denying Disney, but the truth is that Disney does faux as well as the best of them, and it still screams faux. I agree that the Yonge facade of the Eaton Centre is wretchedly bland and appallingly monotonous even as it tries to break up that facade, and I am glad you mentioned it, but unless the developer of such a proposal hires a number of architects, and without some actual old facades grafted onto new frames, I cannot see this working as well as you hope it will. So, the next two points are:

2) Only use real historic facades for the buildings that you want to look historic. Have the City grant density bonuses to both the developer of this square and the developers of the place where the historic buildings are now. The bonuses will theoretically pay for the cost of the dismantling and reassembly of the facades. In the end you have a square that saves and celebrates the best of what this city has been, and in 10 years you don't have motor mouths like me wandering about screaming "it's all fake, fake I tells yah!"

3) Hire a number of architects to put it all together. Sure, have one firm overseeing the assembly of it all, but make sure that there is typical urban variety in the square by employing variety in the first place. I would even go so far as to say hire a couple of less august firms (G+C, Varacalli, etc. and give them a couple of smaller buildings) just to make it all look believable. (If there isn't some mediocrity around the square, it wouldn't feel like home.)

Anyway, want more squares, love this idea overall, looking forward to people watching and dining al fresco here with the sounds of the fountain splashing away in the background, and especially looking forward to the espresso and Courvoisier.

Cheers!

42
 
42:

Don't really agree with you on a number fronts. First off, given the decidedly mixed reviews that facadism gets, one might argue that your suggestion is even more artificial... and a little sad. It might turn the square into another Guild Inn graveyard of lost opportunities (ironically I thought this square might be a great place to host these Guild Inn tombstones where many more folks would see them). But I'm just being difficult... a restored historical facade would work perfectly fine in the square. Around the corner, Concert did a pretty good job on the Church Street facades... for the life of me I can't understand why they threw it all in the crapper with the so-called design of the Shuter/Church intersection.

Secondly, I disagree that new construction referencing old Toronto will fail. The Morgan succeeds (thanks in large part to its location/context) and a good portion of the render actually exhibits design closer to a Mozo kind of look which itself succeeds in part to its location/context. I also believe that the "collision" of older references and modern glass and steel works really well... and there's plenty of modern elements knitting the "hodge podge" together.

Disney fails because the entire enterprise is "pretend"... it is a theme park in a swamp, not a huge downtown canvas surrounded by buildings and styles that can be referenced. I don't think we need "permission" to utilize new construction with arched windows of brick, gables, capitals and columns et al.... we have permission. We're surrounded with permission.

I guess what I'm saying is it will be impossible to legitimize my approach so that absolutely no armchair architects look at it in 10 years and bemoan it's "fakeness"..... but I don't think that really matters.

Most people will just enjoy being in the square because it "feels right", giving little regard to the pros and cons of individual architecture components.

And that's why it would succeed. The very fact that it has been well-received in an architecture/development forum, despite the risky business of utilizing "fake" old buildings, suggests to me that the sensory sum of its parts makes a compelling case for this approach.
 
I think it's amazing and would love to see something like this in several areas of Toronto, but I'm sure that those who are slaves to modernism on this board must be horrified!
 
'Slaves to modernism'? Well, Towered, at least you found a term that doesn't have any baggage attached to it. How do you refer to yourself then, 'Hysterically minded' maybe? I'm sorry, 'Historically'?

See? It just as easy for me to characterize those with whom I disagree of having an intransigent black-and-white view of something too.

3D - what's sadder - that beautiful facades might be moved to a district to save them, or that they might disappear entirely?

If a handsome old building has got to make way for a new one - according to the developer that owns it at least - then doesn't it make some sense to save and move its historic facade to somewhere it can continue to exist? Why would the kind of nostalgia that triggers the preservation of an actual historical facade be any sadder than the kind of nostalgia that causes developers to order up faux historic facades from hungry architects?

How one feels about the end result of such nostalgia is entirely subjective. You might prefer a square that is surrounded by new facades that are trying to look like old ones. I would rather see actual old facades that would have fallen to the wrecker's ball otherwise.

42
 
As romantic as your comments are... I don't think you read my post carefully. After being contrary, I agreed that a saved facde would be perfectly fine in the square.

But I also said we have permission to build something like this regardless of whether doomed facades are available or not.

This place would succeed and the comments above bear it out... true or false?

Imagine the restraint involved in my rendering exercise given my inclinations (see RTH condo)... where architectural LSD trips were replaced in favour of "what might work" for everyone.

It just feels right.
 
P.S.

My own inclination is not to build 'instant old' in this city (or anywhere really): faux historic architecture nearly never succeeds.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, this is where we disagree. It is possible. BTW you can review the approved massing study/siteplan plan on page 1 of this thread.
 
3D How can we assist you as a forum to lobby, educate, share this proposal with as many (CITY, owner of land, media) and put UT name behind it?
Any ideas anyone?
 
^ the good news... is your passionate response suggests that an UT forum with an action plan would actually make some serious waves in this city.

The bad news: the siteplan for this parking lot was approved more than 2 years ago... and the planning department folks (and their dental plans, retirement plans), the owners and... worst of all... the architects (mind your own business) adds up to a big fat "mind your own business".

So it will never happen... which is a shame because nothing like this opportunity will be available again for many decades.

But... if this discussion contributes to moulding a genuine UT voice, it will be worth it.

But, but.... you are most welcome to spam every councillor, neighbourhood organization, and city planning with the idea!

Thanks.


P.S. you should probably contact Ed and Billy directly to lobby for a UT what can we be? thread that is not buried in forum issues or other... but front and centre, always top of page.

Makes sense to me.
 
interchange42 said:
3D - what's sadder - that beautiful facades might be moved to a district to save them, or that they might disappear entirely?

If a handsome old building has got to make way for a new one - according to the developer that owns it at least - then doesn't it make some sense to save and move its historic facade to somewhere it can continue to exist? Why would the kind of nostalgia that triggers the preservation of an actual historical facade be any sadder than the kind of nostalgia that causes developers to order up faux historic facades from hungry architects?

How one feels about the end result of such nostalgia is entirely subjective. You might prefer a square that is surrounded by new facades that are trying to look like old ones. I would rather see actual old facades that would have fallen to the wrecker's ball otherwise.
Click to expand...

Er...why either of the two? It's dreck. You hear me? Dreck.

http://torontoist.com/2007/08/facadomy.php
http://torontoist.com/2007/08/facadomy.php
http://www.nowtoronto.com/issues/2007-11-29/news_insight.php

Interchange42, you're clearly not conversant with a substantial heart of the preservationist community--otherwise, you'd comprehend that characterising things in these simplistic, saccharine, bathetic blecccchhh terms of "beautiful facades" (let alone ones that can be freewheelingly transplanted into "facade district" affairs such as this) is actually a touch insulting, even to them. Relative to the above posted articles, in fact, what's proposed in this thread is rather nightmarish: disembodied facades with no clear acceptable explanation of why they needed to be disembodied in the first place. Why even *bother* with such a gesture, if neither Modern-lovers or heritage-lovers or anyone but dumb tourists and yokels with a Disney oh-wook-at-da-pweddy-building notion of "heritage" will be satisfied?

Just because developers do it, and city heritage planners approve it, and heritage professionals are hired on behalf of such work, does not, in principle, mean that it's the kind of stuff that the heritage community's gonna embrace with open arms--quite the contrary.

And if you think heritage buffs are crying out for "faux historic architecture", I'm tempted to take those so-called transplantable facades and smash them over your head. Heck, if anything, the heart of the heritage community these days would take the original Zeidler-tech Eaton Centre Yonge elevation over what's there now--to say nothing of the old Yonge-Dundas glasshouse entrance, plus its newly expired office-lobby counterpart at 20 Queen...
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top