News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 1.9K     11 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Bayview Village Resubmission More Than Doubles Height Near Bessarion Station
 2.2K     2 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Drone Flight Captures Cladding Progress at Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon
 697     0 

COMING SOON! Bridging the Design Gap - a UT design charette

Everyone in the charette working group would be most appreciative if forum members would read the "how you can help" on page one and post some contact suggestions.

For those members who want to contribute a design, you can read the draft guidelines that were posted on page 1 (they won't change much) and get a head start before April 24th.

Tomorrow I'll post some of the jpegs of the proposed bridge site that you can use for early bird submissions. While the charette website won't go live until the 24th, forum members can send their words and pictures (see guidelines) as soon as you like to info@bridgingthedesigngap.com.

Thanks for the help.
 
The white strip between Spadina and Bathurst across the railway lands...

Cityplace_MasterPlan_r1.jpg


*****

It has been brought to my attention that the Toronto Urban Design Awards is coming soon. The submission deadline is May 19. Perhaps the "early" results of this charette can be submitted as an entry in the "Visions" category. We'll have to raise $100 for the entry fee.

http://www.toronto.ca/tuda
 
Last edited:
^ Andrew, why not model your own design?

All of us in the charette working group really hoping that you, Cass, Wylie, smuncky and other UT artists lead the way and submit some ideas.

If you'd like an early bird look at our website (guidelines and resources) please visit http://www.upside-down.ca/charette

Here's hoping we get some Andrew 3D links across the rail corridor.
 
If I can find the time and inspiration between now and the 29th I will. Between my day job, my teaching job, my current local move and my soon approaching stateside move my free time is scarce. But I'll do my best :)
 
I was just going to mention another idea, but it looks like it has already been mentioned as a case study: Frank Gehry's BP Bridge in Chicago.

CityPlace has control of the south end of the span. That's important because it would allow for the elimination of any requirement for a ramp or stairs. A soft sloping hill could be included as part of the park that CityPlace owns leading to the necessary height of the bridge.

For the North end of the span, a serpentine ramp, like the one in Chicago, would fit well here.

The bridge itself doesn't necessarily have to be architecturally beautiful. A farily wide (+/- 20ft) flat surface could traverse the span. Add plant boxes along the edges with tall bushes. A layer of soil on the entire surface of the bridge would enable a surface of grass with stepping stones creating a path for which pedestrians to walk on.

The outcome would be an extension of the park from the south towards Front St. The plant boxes and bushes would create the enclosure that CP requires and would obscure the view to the tracks, making the crossing more pleasurable.
 
Last edited:
My above idea was inspired by the proposed span that would connect Fort York to Stanley Park.

They're now considering a more conventional bridge. It crosses over 2 rail corridors and looks like this:

picture1gyu.jpg

picture2ndq.jpg


Info on this can be found here: http://www.fortyork.ca/management_docs/Predestrian_Bridge_Booklet_06.pdf

I'm not exactly sure who would be spending the money on this Fort York bridge, but substantial savings and a better design can be found if the budget for both bridges were combined. A modular design like the one proposed could be pre-fabricated and transported by rail to both locations and assembled at night as to not disrupt rail traffic.

Fabricating both bridges with identical sections would bring the cost down substantially. Instead of making 30 sections for the Fort York bridge (random number), they'd fabricate 50 (the Portland bridge is shorter) using the same process.

I think CityPlace and Fort York should be talking to each other.
 
Last edited:
^some good strategic thinking MM. You should find someone with a pack of crayolas and submit an idea to the charette.

Bridge Height: I've often wondered if the excessive height* of the bridge that GO is demanding to maintain sight-lines to the train signals (*resulting in long ramps) could be remedied somewhat by moving the signals to the bottom of the bridge deck.... guaranteeing unobstructed sight-lines.
 
If the bridge were to take on a curvature, the bridge itself could be a ramp. Using this modular system, it would begin on Front, parallel to the tracks, raising gradually as it curved perpendicular, over the span, supported by that one pillar and then begin to curve back parallel to the tracks and land on the other end.

The submitted design is horrid and should not even be considered by the city. Why have a ramp on the CityPlace side if Concord controls the landscape which can form the landing for the bridge without any ramps whatsoever?

There are three areas that could benefit -- and will eventually require -- a bridge over the tracks. Portland to CityPlace, Fort York to Stanley Park and Liberty Village to Shaw.

If the city were to undertake a tri-bridge venture, they could build all three using the same system, same factory, same employees and similar design. CityPlace is funding its third, a developer at Liberty Village could fund a third in exchange for height/density and Fort York's third would be funded by the city (or whatever body manages the historic site).

This whole bondoggle seems to be the product of poor vision and bad planning. I think this design charette should address this problem as a project of three spans over the tracks, not one.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top