Toronto KING Toronto | 57.6m | 16s | Westbank | Bjarke Ingels Group

[Ramako]

From the article: One Panelist eloquently summed it up as "an overly aggressive density ask combined with somewhat untested architectural innovation"

This does indeed sum up the mindset among architects in Toronto: "Toronto - where untested architectural innovation is forbidden."

This is a case of a project is rightly setting the context instead of being subsumed by it.

Agreed. This maddening reverence for context is tall poppy syndrome writ large. Thank God we weren't so concerned about context when TD Centre went up.

 

[ADRM]

I was just about to pull out that exact same sentence ("...untested architectural innovation") and complain about it. Man, is that ever frustrating to read, and to think that that viewpoint was offered by an individual who plays a role in shaping the built form in our city. No wonder we continue to get Cityplace, et al.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From the article: One Panelist eloquently summed it up as "an overly aggressive density ask combined with somewhat untested architectural innovation"

This does indeed sum up the mindset among architects in Toronto: "Toronto - where untested architectural innovation is forbidden."

Agreed. This maddening reverence for context is tall poppy syndrome writ large. Thank God we weren't so concerned about context when TD Centre went up.

That doesn't bother me as much as the hypocrisy - smack a few towers on a facadized base, great! Maybe knock a few floors off for the sake of density and voila. And before you knew that is the new context in an entire district. Meanwhile, you aim for what is frankly a more traditional typology and all of a sudden we are concerned about the how it is untested, etc. Sheesh. Like someone please tell me the FSI of this project relative to some of those perversions up at ED.

And you know who are responsible for those perversions.

AoD

 

[ProjectEnd]

Well we've already had the privilege of seeing what the elites of Toronto architecture would have proposed:

 

[interchange42]

Context is everything, and you guys are pulling that quote out of it.

The point of that line was not to declare that "we do not want any untested architectural innovation in Toronto", but that some of the building's design innovations are deserving of more scrutiny, worth more testing through discussion and modelling.

Of course this plan is far better than run-of-the-mill glass-behind-heritage, but the DRP is looking for revisions that make it better still. The greater context of the meeting was that there are strong concepts in the design that they like—a lot—but that the details don't yet support all of the possibilities that a design which better addresses a number of the issues that they identified could and should bring, hence the "missed opportunity" statements. Those reflect that they are looking for changes that show more of the genius that should be apparent in this concept. They don't want it thrown out, they just don't think it's there yet.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Context is everything, and you guys are pulling that quote out of it.

The point of that line was not to declare that "we do not want any untested architectural innovation in Toronto", but that some of the building's design innovations are deserving of more scrutiny, worth more testing through discussion and modelling.

Of course this plan is far better than run-of-the-mill glass-behind-heritage, but the DRP is looking for revisions that make it better still. The greater context of the meeting was that there are strong concepts in the design that they like—a lot—but that the details don't yet support all of the possibilities that a design which better addresses a number of the issues that they identified could and should bring, hence the "missed opportunity" statements. Those reflect that they are looking for changes that show more of the genius that should be apparent in this concept. They don't want it thrown out, they just don't think it's there yet.

42

But they voted for redesign 7-0. not refine 7-0.

AoD

 

[interchange42]

The two options available in the vote are beginning to be seen now as not providing enough feedback. The panelists were simply saying that there are a lot of revisions they want to see to this design, but not a complete redesign. Maybe the sliding scale should now be Refine — Revise — Redesign. If they had that option, this would have landed in the middle: there was a lot of commentary to go along with the vote.

42

 

[stjames2queenwest]

Who are these people on the panel? How do they get appointed? I really don't understand their decisions sometimes. Do panel members change or are they consistent?

 

[interchange42]

I could add that Urban Design is musing about adding a third option they described as "Develop", meaning develop these ideas further… but that was in brought up at the second review of the day (and one which we will report on soon), where they want to encourage the designers to go further in a direction that is just hinted at the in the design elements, and which they've identified as worthy of more thought. Maybe that would have been where this landed too.

I also meant to reply regarding the context comment: they were specific about King west of Spadina, in that the number of heritage buildings rather beautifully restored [by Allied, one of the developers here] have brought about a particularly terrific few blocks. I think I can say that they do not see the Entertainment District east of Spadina as a particularly terrific landscape to emulate on the whole, and they are aware of the great heritage bones of this area. They just want this design to better acknowledge and celebrate the heritage on the site.

42

 

[interchange42]

Who are these people on the panel? How do they get appointed? I really don't understand their decisions sometimes. Do panel members change or are they consistent?

You can learn about the panel on the City's webpage here, including who the panelists are. They are all appointed for a number of years and are respected practitioners in their fields. They include architects, urban designers/planners, landscape architects, a sustainability expert, a heritage expert, and a civil engineer.

42

 

[Waterloo_Guy]

This proposal is a big lump plunked down with zero respect for its context. It is exactly what Jan Gehl is referring to when he talks about "birdshit architecture."

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This proposal is a big lump plunked down with zero respect for its context. It is exactly what Jan Gehl is referring to when he talks about "birdshit architecture."

My understanding of Jan Gehl is that he refers to ground level engagement and human scale - if birdshit architecture and context is the issue, we'd be complaining more about ED and not this considering the hugely differing building scales. In fact, this breaks away from our traditional way of adding density - i.e. point towers.

As to the issue of the heritage structures - I agree they can be managed better, but I saw that as a point of refinement (separation, setbacks, whatnot) and not one of complete redesign. My ideal scenario is a design that levitates more from the existing heritage structures (e.g. how 7 St. Thomas handled it).

AoD

 

[ADRM]

The discussion of a third option for DRP panelists is encouraging. I'm sympathetic to the viewpoint that a few of us have cherrypicked a couple quotes from the session without having been there, but I'm also wondering whether international/non-Toronto-based architects have a similar reaction when they hear this sort of feedback.

I ask because I genuinely don't know what the feedback loop is like in such cases - not to be a BIG fanboy, but are the architects and planners working on this project for the firm going to say "ugh, have you seen the current crop of architecture in Toronto/they should be glad they're getting what they're getting here/working in Toronto is dumb and frustrating and we shouldn't do it again because they won't let us push the boundaries at all" (or something along those lines)?

I'm being a little fantastical, yes, but you see where I'm going -- does the DRP and its current form of feedback cause a chilling effect on the pursuit of more interesting architecture and design, especially as it pertains to non-Toronto-based firms?

 

[Filip]

But they voted for redesign 7-0. not refine 7-0.

AoD

I've said this before.. I hope the DRP is completely revenue neutral because paying more than a cent for its existence is insulting.

BIG and this developer can simply choose to ignore them.. Like Mattamy did with Lago. They voted for redesign 7-0 and yet we still got the crap that went in front of them in 2011. If something is 'optional' then it shouldn't exist.

 

[interchange42]

I'm being a little fantastical, yes, but you see where I'm going -- does the DRP and its current form of feedback cause a chilling effect on the pursuit of more interesting architecture and design, especially as it pertains to non-Toronto-based firms?

That's impossible for me to state with any confidence, but the DRP's answer would be "no". They were trying to tell BIG "do some more thinking about these things, and show us the real genius of BIG here", so the DRP would tell you that they want it even more interesting. There were statements at the beginning of the meeting expressing their admiration for BIG's significant projects.

42