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

[atodaso]

What, more plainly, is your point?

42

The developer presented an enticing (and misleading) design in order to get the the proposal approved. It was a brazen bait-and-switch that many people here (on U.T.) were easily seduced by, without considering the broader implications - like the fact that the proposed building will define the urban fabric and the shape of the waterfront for generations. The politics that saw this hotel approved are yet another egregious hit to urban planning in this city. Not only has the potential of the waterfront been severely compromised as a result of this approval, but now we see that we were duped - we allowed it to be compromised for a banal and imposing hotel that can't even rightfully be called architecture.

 

[atodaso]

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.

That's the same argument Doug Ford used in his attempt to derail Waterfront Toronto and push through his mega-mall ferris wheel proposal. Before I spend time trying to reason with you I will suggest you read this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/65075777/Toronto-Portlands-Letter

 

[interchange42]

The developer presented an enticing (and misleading) design in order to get the the proposal approved. It was a brazen bait-and-switch that many people here (on U.T.) were easily seduced by, without considering the broader implications - like the fact that the proposed building will define the urban fabric and the shape of the waterfront for generations. The politics that saw this hotel approved are yet another egregious hit to urban planning in this city. Not only has the potential of the waterfront been severely compromised as a result of this approval, but now we see that we were duped - we allowed it to be compromised for a banal and imposing hotel that can't even rightfully be called architecture.

Agreed, (mostly) but that's no reason to feel silly, that's a reason to be riled up.

The developer in this case is Exhibition Place itself. Because of a general lack of architectural controls when building in this city, there was little that could be done after Exhibition Place had its planning approvals.

We are here to try to raise the level of discourse in Toronto about architecture, and to get the topic more into the public consciousness in the first place. Assuming that Hotel X comes out as badly as the renderings indicate it will, we should all do what we can to hold the Ex's Board of Governors to account for it.

42

 

[interchange42]

That's the same argument Doug Ford used in his attempt to derail Waterfront Toronto and push through his mega-mall ferris wheel proposal. Before I spend time trying to reason with you I will suggest you read this:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/65075777/Toronto-Portlands-Letter

That's not the same argument whatsoever. We have an existing entertainment centre and trade show/consumer show venue at the Ex. Ontario Place (hopefully reborn soon) and numerous other facilities nearby like BMO field will all benefit from having a hotel nearby. There's nothing wrong in principle with having this new facility here. It's the architecture that promises to be an embarrassment, not the particular use of the land.

42

 

[maestro]

Your idea of a parade grounds (greenspace seems to have confused )is a limited use in which the west side of the grounds are more than sufficient. High Park is a community park. Millenium Park is asmaller, centrally located multipurpose space. The larger Grant Park is very under utilized. I think everyone agrees the hotel design should of been better handled but, the hotel is without doubt an appropriate ancillary use for the facilities on this side of the grounds.

Are you saying High Park is of no significant value to Bloor west village? Hyde park to London, Central park in New York, Millennium park in Chicago?
It should be preserved as a parade grounds and public fair space. it's not going to help the already waining CNE which is still the biggest draw to the property. Two or three buildings of 5-7 story's spread over a 100 meters apart, in stately fashion with long tree lines mass plantings rolling over a long grade change towards picturesque views of the lake and what will be a re-vamped Ontario place. this is so short sighted and menial. How men and women that aren't former or current architects, urban planners or landscape architects are even allowed to vote on these sorts of matters is just wild to me. These designs are the sort of thing I would expect to see from some of the slightly less creative students enrolled in college design programs. even the originals are all flash and no substance, even for 6 years ago. If Jennifer Keesmaat wants a job for much longer, she'd do well to put a stop to this, and invest some genuine interest in what should be a crowning jewel in the crown of Toronto park land.

 

[atodaso]

That's not the same argument whatsoever. We have an existing entertainment centre and trade show/consumer show venue at the Ex. Ontario Place (hopefully reborn soon) and numerous other facilities nearby like BMO field will all benefit from having a hotel nearby. There's nothing wrong in principle with having this new facility here. It's the architecture that promises to be an embarrassment, not the particular use of the land.

42

If Toronto has no aspirations of being anything more than a hodge-podge of buildings to support various commercial exploits in the near-term then I'd have to agree.

 

[atodaso]

Your idea of a parade grounds (greenspace seems to have confused )is a limited use in which the west side of the grounds are more than sufficient. High Park is a community park. Millenium Park is asmaller, centrally located multipurpose space. The larger Grant Park is very under utilized. I think everyone agrees the hotel design should of been better handled but, the hotel is without doubt an appropriate ancillary use for the facilities on this side of the grounds.

I don't think parade grounds was the sole purpose LDFTW was getting at.

 

[interchange42]

If Toronto has no aspirations of being anything more than a hodge-podge of buildings to support various commercial exploits in the near-term then I'd have to agree.

Toronto has aspirations of cutting the gravy train. You mean there might be more to life than just that?

Honestly, there are a lot of people who want more and better for the city, but it's difficult to get agreement on what that should be. There are at least several of us for whom a hotel on this site is not only not a problem, but a worthwhile addition to the Ex's facilities. That difference of opinion should not be construed as an indicator that others don't also have aspirations for a better TO tomorrow.

42

 

[atodaso]

Toronto rivals only Houston and a few other unplanned US cities in terms of lack of urban vision and coordinated planning. The cultural awareness of the built environment is at a comparably rudimentary level.

 

[atodaso]

....but it's improving.

 

[Parkdalian]

Toronto rivals only Houston and a few other unplanned US cities in terms of lack of urban vision and coordinated planning. The cultural awareness of the built environment is at a comparably rudimentary level.

I'm not sure this is entirely the case! It definitely doesn't match European standards, but Toronto has had urban vision. Think of the David Crombie-era and what city council planned for Toronto. What has changed is that everyone in the 70s expected old Toronto to grow at a more manageable pace (if at all) and growth since the 90s has been unprecedented. The David Crombie-era vision would have worked, but now Toronto's growth is much too rapid for that older model. We definitely need to find a new plan, but it is difficult to agree on what that should be: should the downtown be for downtowners, or for surburbanites? Where do lower income people fit into this plan? Should we build tall or destroy sizable chunks of our heritage and build mid-size everywhere? It's easy to say "WE NEED VISION" and demand someone to take over, but unless it's a vision we can generally agree is helpful, we will likely end up with Robert Moses-type developments: developments that are massively one-sided and potentially enormously destructive.

And no matter what we choose, people will dislike the choice, and declare that we have "no vision," etc as a way to argue for their vision.

 

[atodaso]

All very good points.

 

[AllThingsUrban]

This is one big hole.

 

[reetard]

That's what she said.

 

[kram74]

two cranes are now up

not sure what this is.....looks like something
for a satellite.