Toronto Fort York Visitor Centre | ?m | 2s | Fort York Foundation | Patkau

D for me. It has the best connectivity to both the fort and the street. Not just by entrance orientation, but also in its form. It has the best relationship to the gardiner - using it with the exhibits is a great idea! It is also has the most interesting design to look at.

I also like C and A, but B does nothing for me.
 
I think C and D are the most interesting. This centre will make a huge difference in the way people see Fort York. Right now there is no major entrance, it almost looks like the place is abandoned. At least now it will have a proper entry point and feel like a real attraction.
 
I like C the best. Must be so hard to design something around the Gardiner. It looks so weird in all the proposals.
 
Just one more indication that Toronto has become the most vibrant city for design in the world, at the moment.

Between this and the proposed green ribbon the city may pull off something of a planning coup: saving tons of cash (by not burying the Gardner) while simultaneously opening up the urban core with these two wonderful public spaces.

Go Toronto!
 
D is the most adventurous with its curves, but the view from the south in the renderings make it look a bit unpolished. All in all, there's not one which really stands out as very unique. I like C the most as well. The way it fits under the Gardiner adds some drama and it handles that aspect of the site well.
 
D for me.
The execution of "storiedGROUND" theme/metaphor put it over the top for me. It's also the best plan to neutralize the impact of the ominous gardiner from the north side which I think is more important than the south since visitors will spend more time on the grounds. From the south side C is most dynamic but is the runner up in my eyes.
I'm quite impressed that all of these proposals are from toronto firms.

Edit: We should have a poll on this, no?
 
For me it is 'A' all the way. Unlike all the other plans it creates a very dramatic and almost theatrical sense of transition between the modern and the historic, allowing the visitor a sense of transitioning, or literally stepping up, from modern day to historic past with features such as the 'time tunnel' and 'ghost wall' etc.

Concept 'A' achieves the ideal scenario by creating a sense of 'monument' or destination for the centre itself, all the while still deferring in its placement and configuration to the historic site. It is a sophisticated approach that elevates the visitor's experience of the centre from simply a functional one to one that is actually experiential and interpretive in and of itself.

Other attributes:

- The choice of materials (the brushed metal of the 'escarpment' and the murky transparancy of the ghost wall) does not compete with the original materials of the fort, allowing the fort to stand in historic contrast while allowing the centre to create its own design impact in a way that does not intrude on the site itself.

- The centre's design is bold and interesting, asserting itself as a compliment to the experience of the Fort rather than timidly burying itself or hiding into the landscape, and there is no false conceipt of trying to compete with the historicity of the Fort itself.

- This design rehabilitates Garrison common, the cementary and a sense of the historic lakeshore to an extent that the other plans do not, and still manages to intrude less on those spaces than some of the other plans.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
A for me - I found the rest of the proposals way too "busy" - and none of the them appear to be as materially sophisticated either.

If I have to guess

Scheme A: Patkau Architects with Kearns Mancini Architects Inc
Scheme B: Diamond and Schmitt Architects Inc; du Toit Allsopp Hillier / du Toit Architects Limited
Scheme C: Raw Design with Gareth Hoskins Architects.
Scheme D: Baird Sampson Neuert Architects

AoD
Click to expand...

Good for you for trying figure out which entry is which, Alvin: it's certainly fun trying to guess. I like that by not knowing for certain who designed which, I am kept from being predisposed to one design just because...

A is by far the most elemental, most monumental, with its Corten rusted steel bulwark wall, like a fortress itself, and an appropriately rough face for the lovely/unlovely underside of the Gardiner: this is a memorable structure. I like the light and contrasting Ghost Screen too, another simple, subtle brush stroke, yet again monumental owing to its size. It's all very dignified, grand, and communicates clearly without shouting.

I have two qualms: 1) is it too long though? It extends rather far east and west. 2) all of the renderings focus on the dramatic southern facade, and the one drawing of the north facade leaves me without enough information to feel I have enough information.


B's ramped green roofs appeal to me, and in general I like the palette of materials used inside and out, but to me this looks like it would fit better in a rural setting, as I find it incongruous here in the midst of the city and under the Gardiner. This would make a perfect EcoCentre somewhere, but its materials seem too warm and fuzzy for a place of war, even though we just love to sentimentalize the past.


C gets high marks for restoring the landscape around the fort, and for a paying attention to where a future streetcar line will drop passengers, and to a clean and elegant design. I like the bullrush lights, I like the connections for the city's bicycle and pedestrian path system best here. I don't think this place looks monumental enough though to transport visitors back to 1812: that's an order that takes more magic than there is in this design, which would be perfect were this merely a community centre.


D's sodded, eastern, fort-facing side is interesting with its trenched walkways directing visitors to the fort through its undulations, but I hate the facade under the Gardiner: it is far too busy, and looks rather 1970. It reminds me of the podium at the base of the CN Tower, and that's not good.


My choices? Clearly A, then a big jump down to C, then B, then another jump down to an unwanted D. And Alvin I'll bet you're right about who designed which.

42
 
i42:

I just realized we've got 4 presentations and 5 firms...so I must have gotten something wrong there. Interestingly, the style of the diagrams/graphics is a big giveaway to which firm is behind each presentation.

Totally agree with Tewder and your assessment re: A.

AoD
 
A uses materials that set up a strong design-opposite dialogue with the Fort's heritage buildings, and it's also elemental enough to face down the scar of the Gardiner. The repetitive steel modules suggest the famous "thin red line" - the nickname given to the battle formation of British infantrymen in the 19th century:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Robert_Gibb_-_The_Thin_Red_Line.jpg

B looks like a blockhouse, suggests the materiality of the original wood Fort buildings ( long since gone ) and looks about as green - roof 'n' all - as things can get ( beetlewood cladding, no less ). There's a sympathetic new/old match that extends the original rural nature of the site southwards.

C is smart, elegant, neutral, and expresses the same values as TKTKTK's famous whine about how the Four Seasons Centre looks like "a car dealership". What's not to like?

D aligns boldly with the Fort and funnels visitors through to it. I think the design works better on the Fort side, where people emerge to tranquil, undulating green, than on the south side entrance - which looks overdesigned, and sets up a new kind of barrier.

My vote: A.
 
I also like A the most. The other three seem to take similar approaches IMO.

One question about doing this with the Gardiner above: Will they install sound absorbing panels on the bottom and on the sides? Would that make much of a difference in improving the pedestrian usability under?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top