Toronto Aquavista at Bayside | 46.94m | 13s | Tridel | Arquitectonica

[interchange42]

That's a good sign for future homegrown art shows along the Water's Edge Promenade stretch of Merchants' Wharf.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

That's a good sign for future homegrown art shows along the Water's Edge Promenade stretch of Merchants' Wharf.

42

Too bad it isn't a live-work project.

AoD

 

[interchange42]

There's talk of another Artscape project coming somewhere nearby…

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Ah yes, that rumour. Interesting.

AoD

 

[ponyboy]

Fascinating to see a new community built from scratch.

I've noticed that concessions from developers are often art related. I hear little active and official reflection about whether the concessions (resources) we are getting from the development community are being spent in ways consistent with the social problems/issues we want to address with the building boom "dividend" that has blessed the city. I love art like anyone else, but my cynical side speculates that money for artists/art is on offer more because it does not scare potential buyers like rent-geared to income units would. Understandably, a developer would rather buy political capital through art-related contributions than building more family-size units in their building. More so, art and art spaces are being sold as a cool amenity of the projects, so their status as concessions is unclear. I've also noticed that Artscape has become a key organization --a brand if you will-- how does the City comes to choose Artscape to run these kinds of endeavours? They seem to do a pretty good job as far as I can tell, but is there an open bid process? Who is being helped most (and least) by the emphasis on art in developer concessions? Being an upper middle class white person who visits most of the Artscape facilities, I can say that it is largely people like myself to use these art-related programs, and mingle at the related farmers markets (e.g. the art barns). I don't want to appear overly negative, but there is a clear disconnect between the marketed vision of multi-cultural mixed-community and arts-related endeavours that have been slow to bring diverse Torontonians into the fold. Like Richard Florida's view of creative classes aesthetic preferences, the ArtScape menu speaks mostly to white (WASPy) sensibilities.

 

[NBGtect]

By pressing enter on your keyboard you can create more white space rather than huge blocks of text that are very difficult for anyone to read.

 

[interchange42]

Fascinating to see a new community built from scratch.

I've noticed that concessions from developers are often art related. I hear little active and official reflection about whether the concessions (resources) we are getting from the development community are being spent in ways consistent with the social problems/issues we want to address with the building boom "dividend" that has blessed the city. I love art like anyone else, but my cynical side speculates that money for artists/art is on offer more because it does not scare potential buyers like rent-geared to income units would.

I think there's quite a bit of misunderstanding in this area, but I try to correct it in public art related stories on the front page, and here in the threads when it comes up.

Concessions from developers are not art related. I assume by concessions you mean the public benefits obtained through Section 37 agreements as part of the zoning amendment application process. Those public benefits are provided by developers in return for the extra density they receive from the zoning amendment agreements. They typically go to streetscape improvements, park improvements, community centre building or improvements, affordable housing, PATH extensions, etc. Every Section 37 agreement is a little different.

I believe that much of the art you are thinking of comes from a different program. The City's Percent for Public Art Program requires that all new buildings in Toronto larger than 10,000 sq. metres in size set aside at least one per cent of the gross construction cost for the installation of public art. While the type of art and its location in, on, or most often just outside of the development changes from building to building (and has to be acceptable to the City), every building must provide for it.

Understandably, a developer would rather buy political capital through art-related contributions than building more family-size units in their building. More so, art and art spaces are being sold as a cool amenity of the projects, so their status as concessions is unclear.

When you say 'family size units', do you mean affordable housing units, or do you mean market priced 3 bedroom units? Regarding the rest of that section about art, I've cleared all of that up now, right? You're not quite hitting the nail on the head there.

I've also noticed that Artscape has become a key organization --a brand if you will-- how does the City comes to choose Artscape to run these kinds of endeavours? They seem to do a pretty good job as far as I can tell, but is there an open bid process? Who is being helped most (and least) by the emphasis on art in developer concessions? Being an upper middle class white person who visits most of the Artscape facilities, I can say that it is largely people like myself to use these art-related programs, and mingle at the related farmers markets (e.g. the art barns). I don't want to appear overly negative, but there is a clear disconnect between the marketed vision of multi-cultural mixed-community and arts-related endeavours that have been slow to bring diverse Torontonians into the fold. Like Richard Florida's view of creative classes aesthetic preferences, the ArtScape menu speaks mostly to white (WASPy) sensibilities.

Ah, well, yes, Artscape has benefitted from Section 37 agreements—not in regards to specific works of art, but in terms of creating space for artists, that true. I think anyone associated with Artscape reading your assessment of it as mostly speaking to white (WASPy) sensibilities would probably be offended, including lots of non-white, non-WASPy artists who have benefitted directly from the agency, and especially those connected with Artscape's facility in the Daniels Spectrum in Regent Park.

In regards to how the City chooses Artscape again and again, that I know next to nothing about. Anyone who does should let us know though, and of course there's Artscape's own About Us page on their website as a starting place for greater understanding of the organization.

Anyway, that's my take on your various concerns, as much as I know at the moment. I'd look forward to learning more about Artscape too.

42

 

[interchange42]

To be called Aquavista.

42

 

[interchange42]

Front page story here covering Toronto City Council approving the 80 affordable housing units for artists to be managed by Artscape.

 

[ponyboy]

Thanks, interchange42, for your response to my earlier comment about Artscape and art related concessions in new projects. I'm not trying to demean the organization, which seems to be run by passionate well-intending people, but rather trying to raise awareness about what may be the unintentional outcomes is it plays out in new art-related developments (especially in the high-end developments, not Regent Park). My criticism is that many of the art related initiatives associated with the recent boom promote a form of cultural omnivorousness that celebrate multiculturalism, but in a way that provides the greater net benefit to higher educated residents -- It speaks to their overriding interests in being cultural omnivores by providing a diverse range of food, art, performance offerings within the walls of a new community or facility primarily used by other well-off individuals. I understand why it happens, not blaming anyone, but it is important to recognize what is happening.

This description/discussion is helpful --

http://globalsociology.com/2012/07/07/revisiting-the-cultural-omnivores/

What public policy best promotes communities with organic forms of multiculturalism inclusive of ethnic and socioeconomic diversity? Some of our inner-suburban strip malls probably reflect this multiethnic mosaic best, but are not on the radar for public subsidies. They are not being lauded by elected leaders in photo-ops as the best of multicultural Toronto.

There is a fundamental inconsistency with selling new exclusive high end developments to potential purchasers and making the communities truly inclusive in a way the reflects the socioeconomic and ethnic diversity of Toronto. These art-related developments in new communities should not convince anyone as embracing inclusiveness in a major way when in fact they are largely exclusive.

 

[Tuscani01]

I really wish the building was right up against the water's edge, instead of having a road between it and the water. It's the only thing I do not like about this project, and its not even the developer's fault in this case.

 

[canarob]

It kind of looks like two of the Infinity Towers stuck together. I'm glad to see this area develop and all, but this whole Bayside project just seems very clunky and inelegant. I would happily be proven wrong by the finished product though.

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

From the Tridel website:

 

[apayette89]

That podium looks terribly generic and boring. Why would they put a grocery store facing the lake? Bad idea, imo.

 

[junctionist]

I really wish the building was right up against the water's edge, instead of having a road between it and the water. It's the only thing I do not like about this project, and its not even the developer's fault in this case.

Waterfront Toronto apparently wants a main street atmosphere with retail along the street. One day, they can close the street to cars, but in the beginning it'll be open to vehicles to draw the city in.