Toronto First Parliament Site | ?m | ?s

No, it is completely underwhelming! What is it about 'national historic site' that you think is fitting for a library and a building that looks like an office park? I know that many find Canadian history to be boring, unimportant or something to be in denial about but there are some who do see this unique site as an opportunity for a bigger and more creative gesture.
 
You know, I've read what this site was, I've seen illustrations of what the buildings were... now that was underwhelming, hahaha. I definitely prefer that it will be both something useful, with the library component and community hall, and also a memorial. The square is elegant and captures the essence of what is being commemorated, it's well inserted in the neighbourhood (I bike past it everyday and I can definitely see it there), I like how they mark the former edge of lake Ontario with that water installation; I don't know, I feel they got it quite right.
 
It just looks like an attractive plaza for some ordinary building like the Bay Adelaide Centre plaza, but lacks any sort of memorial and it looks cramped. It doesn't look like it's commemorating anything. There's no historic atmosphere to it achieved through art and design. It doesn't matter how bad the previous building was. We got this land, and now for that effort we should do something impressive with it, or what was the point? People must be able to feel the history in the space--it should inspire them. At the same time, it should be comfortable and inviting.
 
Completely agree Junctionist. History is all about the telling of it. This is a great opportunity, and a rare one in this city, and people are happy with a library and with generic and polite neo-moderist architecture/design? Whatever!
 
While I understand what you both are getting at, there is no physical history to "revive" here - at least in terms of the parliament structure. I'm not sure if some referential piece of architecture would help - or even dignify - the aim of this site. What really matters is the purpose of preserving the site and the manner in which the history is presented within. I would agree that the building, as shown, does not speak to anything about that history, but if the presentation within is done properly, the exterior look of the building may not matter all that much.
 
The rendering doesn't show how this site will interact with Front Street. Front Street will soon become the new main street of The West Don Lands, I want that to be a main focus of this area. You already have the historic Police Station and Opera Centre, so that is a perfect place to focus. So why no rendering of that side? I think the main focus of a public square, needs to face Front Street. We need some serious art, major landscaping, a great paving design and of course, a fountain that says something about who we are. It may be our last chance to have a truly great fountain, in this city.
 
I think we need to remember that the 'rendering' being discussed is much more of a concept or 'idea' than anything else. It was done by a local group of volunteers and was to get people talking about the site and how important it was and is to our City. Based on the posts on UT alone I think their efforts were successful in getting people to talk about the site and helped propel the City and the former owners to arrange the land swap which was finalised at the end of October. Personally I will be quite surprised if the eventual buildings/fountains/parks/museums/libraries on the site look much like any drawings we have seen so far and am looking forward to the City starting to set up some kind of forum where the site can be discussed and its eventual design worked out. I suspect that this 'formal' discussion will not really start for another year or so.
 
gristle said:
While I understand what you both are getting at, there is no physical history to "revive" here - at least in terms of the parliament structure. I'm not sure if some referential piece of architecture would help - or even dignify - the aim of this site.
Click to expand...

Yes and no. I don't think we have to be too literal about the built history of the site, in terms of how a public space/memorial would look. On the contrary this is a site that is all about symbolism. In other words, recreations and so on would be wrong.

That said, I'm not sure to what degree the excavated ruins of foundations could be incorporated into a public site/monument as they are in Montreal at the Champs de Mars for example. This could be pushed even further with the creative addition of fountains, lighting, interactive elements, historic info' panels etc., all combing to create an engaging public space that provides a link with other nodes in 'Old Toronto' including the Distiller and St. Lawrence Market area and so on.
 
Fort Malden in Amherstburg represents demolished buildings with fine gravel outlines marking the foundations. Could something similar be done on this site, with an art piece or water feature marking where the parliament chamber was?
 
Real excavated foundations would be great. Integrating archeology into the landscape design, if possible, is a step in the right direction towards a space that feels historic. Yet simple lines in the landscaping outlining foundations can be dull and overlooked. You can go to Exhibition Place and see concrete lines representing the walls of Fort Rouille (1750). Now that's an underwhelming experience. Even the monument is dull: a small, rounded obelisk. It's empty most of the time.
 
Not sure if we need to treat the site as yet another plaza - one can build on top of building foundations if that's deemed to be worthy of preservation (see examples abroad such as the Acropolis Museum in Athens).

AoD
 
There definitely needs to be a sense of 'there' there. I do question to what degree we are actually capable of envisioning anything other than the most mundane and prosaic for this site (cue the calls for a library) but if ever we felt up to the task this site would be it... and in terms of the perceived redundancy of yet another public plaza there is some contextual justification for it as resolution to the Esplanade in the west, or a gateway to the Distillery in the east, or as an anchor to an emerging surrounding neighbourhood, or as an added piece to the expanding tourist infrastructure of the entire 'Old Town' area. In other words, this site 'could' be a catalyst for so much more urban development, and in a good way that is long term and forward thinking.
 
We have few plazas and squares and vastly more lawn-and-trees parks. I feel we still need to break through in terms of inspiring commemorative hard surface public spaces, or entirely green spaces that emphasize archeological features. We've done well in sheer volume of green space accumulated in our parks collection, but strong placemaking and historical commemoration is important as well.
 
Razz said:
Taken Nov. 3, 2012:

IMG_0446.jpg


IMG_0447.jpg


Taken Nov. 6, 2012:

IMG_0456.jpg


Taken Nov. 7, 2012:

IMG_0464.jpg


IMG_0466.jpg
Click to expand...


I know I’ll get criticized on UT for posting pictures of the evolution of a Green P parking lot, which is about as exciting as watching paint dry, but heck, we’ve been waiting ages to see some real activity on the First Parliament Site, so I’ll take it for now, and look forward to the eventual demolition of the Budget truck rental and car wash buildings (hopefully by end of 2014) and then many promising developments thereafter....

November 15, 2012:

IMG_0561.jpg


November 16, 2012:

IMG_0562.jpg


November 17, 2012:

IMG_0568.jpg


November 20, 2012:

IMG_0572.jpg


IMG_0573.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top