West 8 just won the Governors Island redesign competition in NYC.
|
|
|
theman23
Active Member
Bu-bu-bu the empire state building was completed in two years!!
Mystery White Boy
Banned
So in terms of the parks and renewal of the waterfront (not including communities) work should be done by 2012? Does that include the Don River revitalization? And are they really planning on cutting out that curvey waterwaythat leads into the Don?
Mystery White Boy
Banned
30 years is still ridiculous. Just think of how long ago 1977, 78 was.
MetroMan
Senior Member
One can argue that building the East Bayfront, the Don Lands and the Portlands is like building a whole new mini city. This is a many multi-billion dollar project kicked started by an available budget of $1.5B.
Waterfrontoronto can only plant the limited seeds it has and insure the best soil conditions. They're then restricted to simply watching the forrest grow.
Does that make any sense? Waterfrontoronto doesn't have $50B to build an entire mini city. They can only encourage the private sector to invest in this project. Stimulating desirability to invest is WT's job. The investors win, the city and those who live here win.
That's why it's taking 30 years to build. It's not restricted by the time it takes to design and build all this, it's restricted by the rhythm of the natural process.
All that said, I believe that the 2010/2012 target is for the central waterfront. This doesn't mean that simultaneously work isn't being done on either end (west and east waterfronts). It simply means that the main focus until 2012 is the central waterfront.
I'd rather this project occur at a methodical pace. History hasn't judged rush jobs too well. Toronto has a unique opportunity like nothing seen worldwide -- other than in Dubai-- where we have an entire city's most valuable waterfront property ripe and available for development.
Waterfrontoronto can only plant the limited seeds it has and insure the best soil conditions. They're then restricted to simply watching the forrest grow.
Does that make any sense? Waterfrontoronto doesn't have $50B to build an entire mini city. They can only encourage the private sector to invest in this project. Stimulating desirability to invest is WT's job. The investors win, the city and those who live here win.
That's why it's taking 30 years to build. It's not restricted by the time it takes to design and build all this, it's restricted by the rhythm of the natural process.
All that said, I believe that the 2010/2012 target is for the central waterfront. This doesn't mean that simultaneously work isn't being done on either end (west and east waterfronts). It simply means that the main focus until 2012 is the central waterfront.
I'd rather this project occur at a methodical pace. History hasn't judged rush jobs too well. Toronto has a unique opportunity like nothing seen worldwide -- other than in Dubai-- where we have an entire city's most valuable waterfront property ripe and available for development.
khris
Senior Member
toraerach
Active Member
Whoa! Which bridge is that at 1:43? Looks like quite the climb.
Thanks for the link.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
lesouris:
That's the bridge for the police basin.
AoD
That's the bridge for the police basin.
AoD
MetroMan
Senior Member
^ and it'll mainly be comprised of steps. Few if none of these bridges will be accessible.
I know it's a limitation of this design but it must be accepted because boats require the height at which building an accessible bridge would be difficult or impossible. Accessibility will still be available in a continuous line along Queens Quay's now Westbound lane.
I know it's a limitation of this design but it must be accepted because boats require the height at which building an accessible bridge would be difficult or impossible. Accessibility will still be available in a continuous line along Queens Quay's now Westbound lane.
khris
Senior Member
And that's as it should be. We should not have to make every thing accessible to everyone in wheelchairs. This project does a great job at making the waterfront accessible to everyone. Disabled, bikes, on foot, and transit.
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
Most of the Central Waterfront will be accessible to all, as it should be.
Burgundy indicates the plan for accessible areas (Jan. 09 draft) -
Burgundy indicates the plan for accessible areas (Jan. 09 draft) -
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Presentations from the May 12 Central Waterfront Community Meeting is now posted by WaterfronToronto:
Update from Waterfront Toronto (7MB)
Central Waterfront Public Engagement Plan (19MB)
Portland Slip Water's Edge Scope and Concept Design (12MB)
York Quay Revitalization Phase II Design Update (4MB)
Toronto's Downtown Waterfront Master Plan (47MB)
Queen's Quay Schematic Design (20+ MB)
AoD
Update from Waterfront Toronto (7MB)
Central Waterfront Public Engagement Plan (19MB)
Portland Slip Water's Edge Scope and Concept Design (12MB)
York Quay Revitalization Phase II Design Update (4MB)
Toronto's Downtown Waterfront Master Plan (47MB)
Queen's Quay Schematic Design (20+ MB)
AoD
Last edited:
Tulse
Senior Member
I went to the May 12 Community Meeting, which was the first time I had seen in detail the proposals for the work. It was certainly an interesting, and at times lively, discussion. One very interesting bit of information I learned is that although the plans for the Queen's Queen revitalization cover 3.5km of the street, there is currently only money budgeted for 800 metres, with very little explicit details of where the rest might come from and when.
With regards to the design, my initial reaction was very positive -- it looks like it will produce a lovely shaded boulevard, with plenty of room for pedestrians, bikers, and skaters, and will really provide a unified feel to the entire waterfront. The approach is natural, warm, and almost soothing, and really humanizes what is currently a concrete canyon. It looks like it will be a very pleasant place to spend time.
All that said, however, as time has passed and I have reflected further on the design, I have become more conflicted. The approach, as explicitly explained by the West 8 designers, is to bring nature to the city, and more specifically to bring Algonquin Park and cottage country to the city (they cited the Tommy Thompson as an inspiration, and showed photos of what looked like Muskoka). The resulting design emphasizes trees, natural granite pavers with maple leaf motifs, undulating wooden benches, and grass between the streetcar rails. Even the light standards will have bases made to look like tree trunks, with reliefs of bark on them.
As I said, it sounds lovely and restful and humanizing, but I wonder if it isn't all just a little...kitschy in its aggressively "Canadian woods" generic design language. There is nothing about the approach that seems to me to be terribly "Toronto" or "urban". The vision is one of giving the city a porch in cottage country, rather than a truly distinctive, truly Toronto vision. Indeed, the rather cliched use of materials and motifs almost made me wonder if the sophisticated urbanite West 8 team wasn't putting a fast one over on the city -- "They want 'Canadian', well, we'll give these rubes 'Canadian'! Haul in the Canadian shield granite and slap some maple leaves on the sidewalks! Plant trees everywhere! That will show them!". The team kept talking about how the waterfront is important not just for the city, but for the region and country as well, but I think that this emphasis on the broader context has produced a design that has nothing of Toronto's uniqueness in it. This is not the waterfront of a city with the ROM Crystal, or the OCAD building, or Aura, or even 1 Bloor. It is not a design that has the city boldly claiming the waterfront for its canvas, and announcing itself to the lake. Instead, it is a design for a city that seems ambivalent about its very urbanity and idealizes the rural area to the north, and has the city somewhat slink away at the water's edge, petering out into a Muskoka chair, turning its back on its downtown core. This is not a waterfront for great restaurants and sophisticated nightlife and celebrated art and culture -- it's a waterfront to take your dog for a walk, to go rollerblading, to have a hotdog and ice cream and maybe watch some buskers.
(This approach is also reflected in the York Quay revitalization, which proposes a "Canada Square" [ignoring that the name is already in use at Yonge and Eglinton], and a "cultural village". Again, the approach suggests a generic "Canadianism", and the whole idea of a "village" of retailers and other small buildings seems rather anti-urban.)
Don't get me wrong -- I like walking my dogs and having ice cream, and I cannot deny that the vision presented seems very attractive. But I wonder if a truly urban city, a truly unique, truly multicultural city, should have such a blandly "Canadianized" (or, more accurately, "Algonquinized") waterfront. The pastoral aspect of the lake is undeniable, but the city already has that element with Toronto Islands. The design will no doubt improve the waterfront immensely, but I think it also reflects Toronto's ongoing conflict with considering itself a truly urban centre -- not just a "Canadian" city, but a world city, deserving of its own assertively urban waterfront.
Perhaps I'm reacting too strongly to this particular aspect of the larger waterfront development, but I think that these observations hold across the larger approach. Again, I don't think the approach is necessarily "wrong", and some elements I love (especially the naturalization of the Don and the reclamation of so much currently wasted industrial land), but I do wonder if the view of the city presented isn't, in a sense, a rejection of the urban and multicultural for a somewhat cliched view of idealized south-central Ontario rural life.
I'd be curious as to what other folks think about the West 8 approach.
With regards to the design, my initial reaction was very positive -- it looks like it will produce a lovely shaded boulevard, with plenty of room for pedestrians, bikers, and skaters, and will really provide a unified feel to the entire waterfront. The approach is natural, warm, and almost soothing, and really humanizes what is currently a concrete canyon. It looks like it will be a very pleasant place to spend time.
All that said, however, as time has passed and I have reflected further on the design, I have become more conflicted. The approach, as explicitly explained by the West 8 designers, is to bring nature to the city, and more specifically to bring Algonquin Park and cottage country to the city (they cited the Tommy Thompson as an inspiration, and showed photos of what looked like Muskoka). The resulting design emphasizes trees, natural granite pavers with maple leaf motifs, undulating wooden benches, and grass between the streetcar rails. Even the light standards will have bases made to look like tree trunks, with reliefs of bark on them.
As I said, it sounds lovely and restful and humanizing, but I wonder if it isn't all just a little...kitschy in its aggressively "Canadian woods" generic design language. There is nothing about the approach that seems to me to be terribly "Toronto" or "urban". The vision is one of giving the city a porch in cottage country, rather than a truly distinctive, truly Toronto vision. Indeed, the rather cliched use of materials and motifs almost made me wonder if the sophisticated urbanite West 8 team wasn't putting a fast one over on the city -- "They want 'Canadian', well, we'll give these rubes 'Canadian'! Haul in the Canadian shield granite and slap some maple leaves on the sidewalks! Plant trees everywhere! That will show them!". The team kept talking about how the waterfront is important not just for the city, but for the region and country as well, but I think that this emphasis on the broader context has produced a design that has nothing of Toronto's uniqueness in it. This is not the waterfront of a city with the ROM Crystal, or the OCAD building, or Aura, or even 1 Bloor. It is not a design that has the city boldly claiming the waterfront for its canvas, and announcing itself to the lake. Instead, it is a design for a city that seems ambivalent about its very urbanity and idealizes the rural area to the north, and has the city somewhat slink away at the water's edge, petering out into a Muskoka chair, turning its back on its downtown core. This is not a waterfront for great restaurants and sophisticated nightlife and celebrated art and culture -- it's a waterfront to take your dog for a walk, to go rollerblading, to have a hotdog and ice cream and maybe watch some buskers.
(This approach is also reflected in the York Quay revitalization, which proposes a "Canada Square" [ignoring that the name is already in use at Yonge and Eglinton], and a "cultural village". Again, the approach suggests a generic "Canadianism", and the whole idea of a "village" of retailers and other small buildings seems rather anti-urban.)
Don't get me wrong -- I like walking my dogs and having ice cream, and I cannot deny that the vision presented seems very attractive. But I wonder if a truly urban city, a truly unique, truly multicultural city, should have such a blandly "Canadianized" (or, more accurately, "Algonquinized") waterfront. The pastoral aspect of the lake is undeniable, but the city already has that element with Toronto Islands. The design will no doubt improve the waterfront immensely, but I think it also reflects Toronto's ongoing conflict with considering itself a truly urban centre -- not just a "Canadian" city, but a world city, deserving of its own assertively urban waterfront.
Perhaps I'm reacting too strongly to this particular aspect of the larger waterfront development, but I think that these observations hold across the larger approach. Again, I don't think the approach is necessarily "wrong", and some elements I love (especially the naturalization of the Don and the reclamation of so much currently wasted industrial land), but I do wonder if the view of the city presented isn't, in a sense, a rejection of the urban and multicultural for a somewhat cliched view of idealized south-central Ontario rural life.
I'd be curious as to what other folks think about the West 8 approach.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Thanks for the insight Tulse. Interesting are we looking for an urban waterfront or a cottage waterfront that mimics the cottages up north. Something tells me that there is a happy medium between the two. I agree with you that there what seems to be a longing for the rural small town lifestyle that has long left the city.
Anyway my feeling is that there should truely an urban face to our city.
Anyway my feeling is that there should truely an urban face to our city.