Toronto Love Park | 3m | 1s | City of Toronto | CCxA

From the Dec 6 WT Board Meeting - Board Book/CEO Report:

York St. and Rees St. Parks Design
The winning designs for York Street Park and Rees Street Park were announced in October. Claude Cormier et Associés’ “Love Park” was the successful design for York Street Park. WHY Architecture and Brook McIlroy’s proposal, “Rees Ridge”, was the successful design for the Rees Street Park site. Pending approval of the Rolling Five - Year Strategic Plan, Waterfront Toronto will
enter into a Delivery Agreement with the Cityof Toronto to define its role as the project delivery agent (p. 14 of PDF)

https://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm...&CACHEID=a1def819-bd69-4c05-8f0d-223194201044

AoD
 
You gotta love how they rushed the whole design competition / selection process, but now these parks are stalled in our wonderful bureaucracy. Hurry up and wait!
 
Dec 5/18 - The temp park looks much better in the dark:

IMG_20181205_221034.jpg
 
Woodbridge_Heights said:
I'll create one asking that 2/3's of them be removed
Click to expand...
Are we talking removing every two out of three bents? Or are we talking chopping off two thirds from each pillar? Better yet, just drill a bunch of giant holes all the way through the bents so that they are two thirds lighter. I'll sign that petition in a heartbeat!
 
Tuscani01 said:
Same here!

(And for those saying people should've spoken up during the consultations - I did, and many others did)
Click to expand...
You may or may not have suggested that the bents remain but many others wanted them removed. The final design (which won a competition) did not have them and a good thing too. Just because one argues for something does not mean you (or I) will get your/our way. Time to move on!
 
DSC said:
You may or may not have suggested that the bents remain but many others wanted them removed. The final design (which won a competition) did not have them and a good thing too. Just because one argues for something does not mean you (or I) will get your/our way. Time to move on!
Click to expand...

Thats great... but to suggest that no one spoke up is incorrect. There's always a chance to still see changes to the plan, especially if the budget no longer allows for the reflecting pool. The design isn't set in stone and im sure many elements will see changes between now and construction.

I'm happy with the winning design, and it was the one I voted for too. I'd just like it more if the bents were somehow incorporated. And for that reason, I support this Daniel person and anyone else who wants to chime in regarding the bents, and if you don't like that - you can take your own advice and move on.
 
Perhaps as a compromise, they could plant trees in place of the bents which would trace the curve of the now removed off ramp. It would act as an homage to the site's previous use.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTC
Screw the bents. To me, leaving them would mean a road was still scarring the landscape in a park that's otherwise been able to relegate cars to the past. This area—which does not feel whole yet—needs a park that doesn't feel like it's been borrowed from vehicles: everything in the park should be there for people to enjoy it, and feel at home in it. Daniel Rotztain (who is a great guy, very intuitive, and quite smart) is wrong about this one.

42
 
In the spirit of compromise that should appease absolutely everyone, I'm going to throw out another option. Clearly, most people want this park to be about enjoying nature and not be reminded of the ugly off-ramp that existed there before. However, there is a sizable group of people who find these giant concrete mushroom looking things visually appealing, especially considering their geometric arrangement and height differences. Here is how we make everyone happy: remove the bents and replace them with actual giant painted concrete mushrooms. Same height, same place, just nicer and more natural-looking. Something like this:
1544125305651.png
 
Tuscani01 said:
Thats great... but to suggest that no one spoke up is incorrect. There's always a chance to still see changes to the plan, especially if the budget no longer allows for the reflecting pool. The design isn't set in stone and im sure many elements will see changes between now and construction.

I'm happy with the winning design, and it was the one I voted for too. I'd just like it more if the bents were somehow incorporated. And for that reason, I support this Daniel person and anyone else who wants to chime in regarding the bents, and if you don't like that - you can take your own advice and move on.
Click to expand...

Much as I think we should ALL move on, I did not suggest that nobody wanted bents left during the public consultations. I said that many also did NOT want them and the winning design has none. They say that a camel is a horse designed by a committee and I think that having parks designed by one (or by some sort of UT write-in campaign) is likely to give us a camel of a park.
camel.jpg
 
Tuscani01 said:
Thats great... but to suggest that no one spoke up is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Who is suggesting that no one spoke up? You spoke up among many others that wanted the bents saved. Even I originally preferred Park Vert which retained the bents, but the jury chose Love Park instead.
Your points and my points were noted, but ultimately it was decided in a different direction with no bents.

I do not want a camel of a park.
 
smnlng said:
Who is suggesting that no one spoke up?
Click to expand...

Go back a page to where I responded to an ongoing conversation...

Last thing I’ll say is I don’t want a camel of a park either, but to say that leaving these bents would destroy the winning design is a bit much. These would barely interfere. I’m still worried the design is going to be cheapened and all of the elements that make the Cormier design special are going to be missing in the final product - and at that point, the bents will likely be gone too. The Ford government’s meddling with WatefronTO doesn’t help reassure me either.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top