Toronto Corus Quay | ?m | 8s | Waterfront Toronto | Diamond Schmitt

[tudararms]

"Toronto Style denial - the idea that creative people connected to the unique cultural and built history of our city that informs our present simply don't exist - is an expression of the inferiority complex that fuels all this world class nonsense. Scanning glossy foreign archiporn journals in order to find examples of similar looking buildings elsewhere in order to deny the validity of what we do here, or failing to see articles about what we do here and holding that up as evidence that we do nothing original, is indeed provincial."

I couldn't agree more. Toronto is big enough and culturally significant enough to be self-referential.

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

Babel: You're right that there are examples of succesfully programmed spaces like the Opera House, et al. But the CoC has something to gain by inviting the public in - it serves a promotional purpose, and besides, I imagine that spreading the good word about opera is part of their mandate.

The reason I'm agitating for walkthrough spaces is that they draw the public in without a need for programming. Our mystery waterfront tenant won't have the same incentive to program their space that cultural groups do. More likely, they'll be happy to have as few of the rabble in their lobby as possible, and do exactly zero programming.

That's the benefit of designing a reason for the public to be there into the building, not just the possibility.

 

[andreapalladio]

Who in their right mind is dying to walk through the lobby of an office building?

 

[Sir Novelty Fashion]

Precisely: no-one is. But is the atrium at BCE Place just the lobby of an office building?

No, and that's why people want to walk through it. Yet it's still a private space flanked by office buildings.

(Heck, even the atrium at The Atrium isn't just the lobby of an office building. Another example of an office building whose design encourages public circulation, and has woven itself into the city.)

 

[unimaginative2]

Or like a 60s situation where they could have opted for Mies but chose Charles Luckman instead. Or like BBB's pre-Libeskind Ground Zero model.

Well who's to say that we can't hire today's equivalent of Mies? We certainly aren't doing it now. I would say that this building is easily as banal as the Beyer Blinder Belle designs, though the site is obviously less significant.

Look; most of *their* fabric is first-rate second-rate (or just plain second-rate), too. And they're richer, and realer, for it...

Look at the side streets of Paris. No, no it's not.

 

[adma]

Well who's to say that we can't hire today's equivalent of Mies? We certainly aren't doing it now. I would say that this building is easily as banal as the Beyer Blinder Belle designs, though the site is obviously less significant.

Less significance (and less size) = less offense. One might conversely paint this discussion as painting the site with excessive Ground Zero-type portentousness. (And those illustrated London examples aren't necessarily equivalent-of-Mies, although they might be equivalent-of-SOM. If you wanna "go better", go Alsop, or something.)

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look; most of *their* fabric is first-rate second-rate (or just plain second-rate), too. And they're richer, and realer, for it...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look at the side streets of Paris. No, no it's not.

No, it's not *what*?
Then again, you're addressing to someone who finds more contemporary soul along the Peripherique than within the Marais. Or at least, if you want the *full* high/low Parisian experience, you need to experience both...

 

[EnviroTO]

South of Queens Quay, the Jarvis Slip Open Space may be reconfigured to enhance the opportunities for developing the Jarvis Slip Special Use Site, provided that at least 3000 sq. metres of open space are provided with frontages onto both the Jarvis Slip and the lakefront

The point of the angled site was to improve view corridors. Every park was designed to create wide views from the entry streets to the water. I can't see a reason why a normal office building would warrant throwing out the design philosophy of the East Bayfront. Sherbourne Park, the Jarvis Slip, and Parliament Slip were all supposed to be thin view corridors just north of Queens Quay and widening up towards the waterfront. The exception quoted above was probably added simply to accomodate the Project Symphony plans at the last minute because it wasn't in the East Bayfront Precinct Plan which on page 29 shows how various floor plates would nicely be accomodated on the site. The final draft of the East Bayfront West Zoning By-Law also clearly illustrates an angled open space to create a widening view corridor. At the last minute to make a plain rectangular office building "fit" with the plan they threw in a clause for the Urban Design Guidelines document. It doesn't show any respect for the process which had the public involved since way back looking at what was supposed to be happening on the site.

 

[unimaginative2]

No, it's not *what*?

It's not second-rate architecture, or even "first-rate second-rate." Those buildings were, to an astonishing degree, built with a care that is certainly not second-rate.

Then again, you're addressing to someone who finds more contemporary soul along the Peripherique than within the Marais. Or at least, if you want the *full* high/low Parisian experience, you need to experience both...

I also find soul along the Peripherique, and I have experienced both. That doesn't mean that I can't find the architecture of old Parisian side streets to be first rate.

 

[adma]

Key word: "old". Look, by that standard, there's no hope that Toronto, or *any* contemporary North American city, can *ever* live up to "old" Paris. It's like expecting classical operettas from a universe of hip-hoppers. And it encases the Parisian experience in a tourist/elitist plastic bubble.

My argument is that with its tensions and counterpoints and imperfections, the "full" Paris is more first-rate than the "first-rate" Paris; indeed, it can reveal the mere tourist/urbanist-magnetic latter to have feet of clay. (Perfect feet-of-clay moment was the suburban riots of a couple of years ago, showing how the Ville de Paris is a bit of a cultural gated community.)

Sure, tourist/elitists may ooh, aah at Fauchon's wares; but they're cheating themselves of the "full" Paris by ignoring the likes of Ed L'Epicier. (And I'm leaving neighbourhood markets out of this for the moment.) Now, by the same caliber, Ed's got superior fare to, say, No Frills (hey, it's the geography)--but still, there's an argument to be made that once you've experienced "full" Paris, you're more prepared to accept "full" Toronto or "full" anyplace, even with all imperfections accounted for.

A generation ago, I might have returned to Toronto from some far off place of Euro-sophistication thinking that, geez, this is a tank town by comparison. Now, I just think we're all warty lovely satellites of each other, and it's nothing to do with Toronto climbing the "sophistication" ladder, either. (It's a tributary of the "psychogeographic" reflex which, as we all know, was itself born in Paris.)

Put it this way, unimaginative2: if, as a Torontonian, you never go to No Frills/Food Basics/Price Chopper because it's not even up to Ed L'Epicier standards, you're part of the problem. IMO anyway.

But anyway, back to Project Symphony: even if it's mundane, it isn't a really low level of mundane--if anything, this Miller/Diamond house style might be more our equivalent to Berlin urbanism under Hans Stimmann, and even the tone of debate about it is (ideally) similar.

“His greatest accomplishment was to develop a strategic vision,†said Harald Kegler, a city planning expert at the Laboratory for Regional Planning in Saxony-Anhalt. “The most important thing he did was keep a cool head.â€

That levelheaded approach maximized results and minimized risk. At a recent party overlooking Potsdamer Platz, the German journalist and author Ulf Poschardt declared, “He saved us from the worst.â€

The arts editor of The Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, Claudius Seidl, then chimed in. “Yes,†he agreed. “But he also saved us from the best.â€

 

[FutureMayor]

Miller Finally Speaks on the Project

Let panel do its job in fixing waterfront

Apr 02, 2007 04:30 AM
Christopher Hume

Most of us don't set out deliberately to do the wrong thing. But we don't always succeed in not doing the wrong thing.

That's why the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Now it seems Toronto's waterfront could be, too.

Though it's not over yet, the story of Project Symphony so far provided a sorry tale of how that happens.

The issue is the critical first project of the revitalized Toronto waterfront, a mixed-use scheme that would bring much-needed employment to the foot of Jarvis St.

If the project isn't of the highest quality, if it fails architecturally, it will call into the question the future of the waterfront, and our desire to build something truly excellent. It will also cast a shadow over our ability to demand quality throughout the rest of the city.

The problem is that Project Symphony has not impressed members of the public who have seen drawings and listened to the designer, Diamond Schmitt Architects. Neither has it impressed members of the Toronto Waterfront Design Review Panel. Indeed, the panel is so unhappy with the work that it has struck a special subcommittee to deal with it.

The panel's chair, Toronto architect Bruce Kuwabara, has made no secret of his feelings. But after he spoke to the Star last month about his concerns, he found himself under attack from many quarters.

Even Toronto Mayor David Miller has let it be known that he feels Kuwabara stepped out of line.

"I'm extremely supportive of design review panels," Miller told the Star last week. "In fact, they're part of my mandate and I'm pushing to have them city-wide, as you know. We've got a pilot process ongoing. But there has to be an integrity to the process. The head of the panel is like a judge. So design review has to happen within context of the process, which as I understand it, is in public and the comments are in public.

"Architects aren't always practised judges and they need to understand the importance of that process having some integrity. That's the issue I'm concerned about, because if the process doesn't work and this is the first shot at it, it's going to undermine our effort to have design review and raise the standard of design across the city. This one on the waterfront has to succeed, and part of that is ensuring impartiality and not pre-judging the issues before there's full and complete discussion."

So let's take a look at that process. So far, the panel has met with Jack Diamond and/or his staff twice. There have also been at least two public meetings; the most recent, chaired by Councillor Pam McConnell, was held last Tuesday.

At both panel sessions, members made it clear they didn't think Diamond's Project Symphony was good enough to set the standard for future waterfront development.

They raised detailed issues such as height, materials, location of the building on the site, relationship of the building to the water and the city, the uses of the building at ground level and the fact that it blocks the view of the lake. The criticisms were made after examining architectural drawings and lengthy discussions with Diamond and his staff.

Hardly a rush to judgment, despite what Miller says.

And after all this, the panel's conclusion was that the proposal violates almost every rule laid out in the East Bayfront Precinct Plan, which was designed by Boston's Koetter Kim after the firm won an international design competition sponsored by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. three years ago.

That plan, approved by Toronto City Council, calls for the site at the bottom of Jarvis to be set aside for a "special use." Whether that means an office building is debatable, but even if it did, this isn't the right one.

Drawings of the scheme show two eight-storey glass boxes joined by an atrium. As one panel member said, it would look more at home at York Mills and Yonge than on a revitalized waterfront.

Indeed, the scheme is so out of sync with the precinct plan, builders would have to apply for the city to rezone the site before construction could begin.

What does it say about the integrity of the process that the first project so clearly breaks the rules?

Perhaps, like architects, politicians are also not always practised judges. Perhaps it's not the panel that's prejudging the process. Perhaps someone is prejudging the panel.

The next panel meeting will be on April 11, when Diamond Schmitt will show its new and improved proposal.

If its judgment is ignored, Miller's worries about the integrity of the process will be justified. But it won't be the panel's integrity that's at issue.

Louroz

 

[FutureMayor]

Public Process?

I have to thank Hume for getting Miller to finally speak on where he stands on this project. Glad to know someone else out there thinks that Miller should be held accountable for his actions taken on the waterfront.

He is clearly behind the project and the architect on this one. What bothers me greatly, is that he speaks about "respecting the public process", yet he has no problem disregarding years of public consultations and planning for the sake of giving his friend a city job.

Louroz

 

[blixa442]

Re: Miller Finally Speaks on the Project

Exactly... Miller is refuting his own point.

 

[yyzer]

Re: Public Process?

well, let's hope for better things on April 11...

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Re: Miller Finally Speaks on the Project

I am glad Hume is turning the heat up on Miller. Common sense would tell you that having an architect that publically went against the agreed upon proposal the first time to design this project, flaunting the very same rules he is supposed to follow is bad optics, to say the least.

AoD

 

[alklay]

Re: Public Process?

Agreed. Public heat can only assist.

Its a shame Kuwabara has been criticized publically for his statements. He is not in the same role as a judge who sits on a legal bench. This is about public design, not jail time for assault. The two roles could not be further apart.

And the public flack will only deter others coming forward and sitting on the panel. Miller, if you have an issue, say it in private.