Toronto Hotel X (was Hotel in the Garden) | ?m | 27s | Exhibition Place | NORR

[atodaso]

what I am trying to say is that is the job of politicians to do, they are the ones with the decision making power, planners simply do the "dirty work" for them. (collect information, advise them, work out the details etc) They simply can't get up and say "lets build a park here!" without council first directing them to look into building a park here.

Hmm. So would that also imply that Ford was right in making transit related decisions that were in blatant conflict with the advice of transportation professionals?

It is my firm belief that Urban Planning needs to be depoliticized.

 

[Landscape design ftw]

I don't think you understand what she can do if you honestly think that she can just get up and build a huge park.

I know she can't just walk in slap the construction crew out of the way chuck a concept plan for a park on the table and demand it be done. What she can do though is give some serious traction to the people she represents in stopping this atrocity.

 

[atodaso]

I know she can't just walk in slap the construction crew out of the way chuck a concept plan for a park on the table and demand it be done. What she can do though is give some serious traction to the people she represents in stopping this atrocity.

Exactly.

 

[innsertnamehere]

you also can't stop this "atrocity". it has all the approval required, and they legally cannot stop this project.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Stanley Barracks ("New" Fort York) as it used to be...

Exhibiton Place (formally Exhibition Park) went downhill when they started paving what was formally grass.

 

[Silence&Motion]

Allowing this hotel was such a big mistake - bad architecture notwithstanding. This could have only been approved through shady backroom dealings.

Do we actually know how this development came into existence? Without knowing the specifics of this project, my sense is that projects of this kind tend to be overseen by arms-length, pseudo-public corporations who are given control over large parcels of land with very little direct oversight from elected politicians. Focused on a narrow mandate (like running the CNE), they tend not to think very hard about urban planning issues and are more concerned with keeping themselves financially sustainable (which is the best way to keep the government off their backs). Other than going into debt, their activities only come under scrutiny by politicians when they build something that gets the public upset. By that time, it's often too late.

I don't know how well this describes this particular development, but it is essentially the the story behind the Toronto Harbour Commission, Harbourfront Corp, and all the other pseudo-public bodies that made really bad planning decisions along the waterfront in the past.

 

[Parkdalian]

you also can't stop this "atrocity". it has all the approval required, and they legally cannot stop this project.

I think she probably could - or at least, someone could. These processes can be stopped - as the recent Scarborough subway switcheroo shows. The problem is that there is no political will. If people started calling up their councillors and demanded an end to this project, it could get scuttled (for a cancellation fee, likely). People do not seem that interested in this development likely because they do not know/do not care about the Ex.

As well, the planning departments can and often do recommend things that are not specifically requested by council, but they cannot introduce anything without the support of a specific councillor to introduce the motion at council. New parks often get recommended by the parks department and council chooses the ones to get developed.

 

[interchange42]

Jennifer Keesmaat has no authority, zero, zilch, to intervene to stop this project. She can't really stop any project in this city. The Planning Department makes recommendations to Council, and they have the power of yeah or nay. In the case of Exhibition Place, I believe the Planning Department has even less influence, and that it's Exhibition Place's Board of Governors who "recommend approval to City Council of business and contractual matters that enhance the viability and profitability of Exhibition Place". You can go through all of the minutes of Ex Place's Bd of Govs on their website if you want to read their decisions in regards to this building.

Without going through all the minutes, what I've been able to make of the situation is this: the Rocco Maragna/gh3 design (which was generally very well liked at UT) was used to prove the worth of having a hotel onsite, one which would also augment the archeological remains of the second Fort York. When it came time to seal the hotel deal, HK Hotels of New York, name now changed to The Library Collection, brought in their own architect—Stephen J Jacobs Group—to 1) make it fit with the rest of their hotels, and 2) bring the cost down.

If you only have a hotel operator willing to foot the bill for a cheaper project, and you (as a Board of Governors) are convinced that you must have a hotel and that you won't be able to go with another operator for whatever reason, then apparently you sign the deal and proceed with the compromised plan.

City Council rarely pays that much attention to architecture. It's all about proposals making economic sense. Seems to be the case as well for Exhibition Place. There may be nobody on their Board (or not enough people who sit on the Board) with any training or enough interest in architecture to be a champion of it, so we are getting something that satisfy their requirements without addressing ours.

The existence of UrbanToronto has meant that condo developers typically pay more attention to architecture than they used to, (well, some do, some don't), but we seem to have much less influence beyond the condo realm. Corporately and individually we need to advocate when and where we can for better architecture. We thought we were getting something good here, but when we weren't paying attention, the Cheapening™ got all the approvals it needed, and now this plan is going ahead and there's no stopping it.

42

 

[atodaso]

the Rocco Maragna/gh3 design (which was generally very well liked at UT) was used to prove the worth of having a hotel onsite,

42

Now don't you feel silly?

 

[interchange42]

Your posts should add value to the thread. Please read the Rules of Conduct stickied near the top of each Forum section.

42

 

[atodaso]

Your posts should add value to the thread. Please read the Rules of Conduct stickied near the top of each Forum section.

42

My post makes a very relevant point, even if it's one you don't like.

 

[interchange42]

What, more plainly, is your point?

42

 

[anonymous0024]

And just because what we're ending up with is a cheapened design, that hardly means that the underlying idea of having a hotel at the CNE was a bad or silly one, and if that is indeed the point you're trying to make, well, it's a specious argument.

 

[Red October]

Personally I'd argue putting a hotel there is a good thing. Other than the Ex, Honda Indy and the occasional Marlies or TFC game the Exhibition grounds are barren. It'd be good to have an area where people are.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Personally I'd argue putting a hotel there is a good thing. Other than the Ex, Honda Indy and the occasional Marlies or TFC game the Exhibition grounds are barren. It'd be good to have an area where people are.

We might make that section of the exhibition grounds back to its original function. A "barracks" for the military. Fort York Armoury is just to the east of Exhibition Place, so the hotel could become a rather fancy "barracks".