Toronto Sidewalk Toronto at Quayside | ?m | ?s | Sidewalk | Snøhetta

Status
Not open for further replies.
Agreed. There's no reason to believe that the rule book will be completely thrown out here, or that planners and planning history will be ignored when building out Quayside… we're adding some new ideas to the mix for testing, but they're not going to get built without planners getting a chance to examen them.

It would be a huge loss to simply reject new ideas because they haven't been tried before, or at minimum haven't been tried here before. Let's keep up with technology.

42
 
WislaHD said:
I sort of pictured something more than a covered roof.

You can say any one of our towers in the financial district create a microclimate around them if we are being that lenient with the term.
Click to expand...
My balcony has a microclimate. Facing west, mostly protected from the wind, it stays warm in the evening, any day that there's been direct sunlight, later than the air just beyond it, making it comfortable to stay outside much longer. Up at my family home, our south-facing balcony warms up earlier in the day than the area in general. There are lots of building-created microclimates out there.

42
 
Not sure the extent of plans for designs like narrow streets or pedestrian alleyways. Am assuming they're a major component and would like to see them. But my takeaway from responses in other threads is that we're severely restricted in that regard. It's nice to think of a Tokyo-like neighbourhood bisected with narrow nooks, but the current guidelines for things like vehicle access, sightlines, and emergency services require much larger standards. So yeah I think neighbourhoods from scratch can only be 'innovative' in their street-level built form to a certain suburbanized degree. Hopefully this can buck that trend tho.
 
interchange42 said:
Agreed. There's no reason to believe that the rule book will be completely thrown out here, or that planners and planning history will be ignored when building out Quayside… we're adding some new ideas to the mix for testing, but they're not going to get built without planners getting a chance to examen them.
Click to expand...
I also expect that what we're seeing in the RFP response more a blue-sky vision than a practical set of proposals. Many of the ideas they're presenting will prove to be impractical thanks to regulatory, spatial, and fiscal constraints. I'm sure some of the ideas will work their way into the final product, but many will be thrown out too. I don't get the feeling that WT is giving Google carte blanche to ignore existing planning and policy frameworks, and I would hope that WT and the city are able to find a balance where there's an opportunity to try some new ideas without giving up all control to the techno-futurists.
 
interchange42 said:
Agreed. There's no reason to believe that the rule book will be completely thrown out here, or that planners and planning history will be ignored when building out Quayside… we're adding some new ideas to the mix for testing, but they're not going to get built without planners getting a chance to examen them.

It would be a huge loss to simply reject new ideas because they haven't been tried before, or at minimum haven't been tried here before. Let's keep up with technology.

42
Click to expand...
Been having a conversation with some architects on this, and the point is a sore one with many, having their innovative and progressive ideas (at least one of them brings tried and proven concepts from Europe) dismissed out of hand by Toronto Planning. In all fairness, the real issue lies with the Ontario Planning and associated Act(s), but the latitude of interpretation possible at the municipal level is much greater than is often allowed.

From Sidewalk's paper:
[...]
upload_2017-10-18_11-38-31.png

upload_2017-10-18_11-39-37.png

[...]
https://sidewalktoronto.ca/wp-conte...lk-Labs-Vision-Sections-of-RFP-Submission.pdf

Without examining the minutia of the idea, many architects will be applauding that. As I replied to one earlier today: "At the least, it throws the fox amongst the chickens".

But on the other hand, *meaningful change* in planning in Toronto and Ontario doesn't have to be so radical and fantasy driven. Even New York City alone has many examples of innovative approaches using *today's technology and thinking* just applied in a more flexible way.

The NYEO report, now a few years old, clearly enunciates that:
Engines of Opportunity - New York City Council
167.153.240.175/downloads/pdf/NYEO.pdf

There's symbiosis of sorts with Quayside and Hearn. What is offered to one should be offered to Hearn, which doesn't even have the fetters of municipal planning to stymie innovative and progressive ideas. One of the prime factors that will burst into the limelight on the whole Port Lands project is the jealously guarded powers of City Planning.

They want to buy into the dream (with others funding) and yet call the shots by their agenda.

WislaHD said:
Take autonomous vehicles. I anticipate widespread adoption, and I am terrified that we are going to unlock a new massive wave of urban sprawl as a consequence.
Click to expand...
I'm very skeptical of this attaining the implementation claimed.

It's stated that in most instances, aircraft can take off and land under total instrument control. However, just common sense alone requires that there be human hands ready to intervene within seconds of any event. In the case of a car, it will require response within a second. This is a complex discussion to address here, but the point is that Sidwalk is making rather fantastic claims, just as the Port Lands project itself does. The most valuable outcome of the need to bring planning practice up to speed is that it will allow *progressive developers* (there are quite a few) to push change in the way they build. Government shouldn't be fettering change, it should be shepherding it.

Hopefully Sidewalk's bold proposals spawn that.
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-10-18_11-38-31.png
    upload_2017-10-18_11-38-31.png
    24.8 KB · Views: 494
  • upload_2017-10-18_11-39-37.png
    upload_2017-10-18_11-39-37.png
    24.6 KB · Views: 457
smably said:
That may have been some artistic licence on the part of the illustrator, as I haven't yet found any mention of it in the transportation section of the RFP. Though it does mention extending the 514 and 501 (?) into Quayside, plus heated sidewalks, retractable canopies for weather protection, and self-driving cars, of course.
Click to expand...
It's mentioned in the documents, but buried deep. Excerpt from today's front page story:
Sidewalk Labs is also exploring the creation of a local elevated transport system, with options like individually dispatchable gondolas or more advanced systems like the Persuasive Electric Vehicle (PEV) being developed at MIT. This system could allow self-driving vehicles to travel both on the ground and connect to aerial skyway cables or guideways via "tower-launching stations".
Click to expand...
 
alklay said:
Heck, give Google more than 12 acres to play with. They can't do worse than what Tridel has inflicted on the waterfront. ;)
Click to expand...
If the first 12 acres are successful, the plan is to do this for 800 acres total
 
44 North said:
Not sure the extent of plans for designs like narrow streets or pedestrian alleyways. Am assuming they're a major component and would like to see them. But my takeaway from responses in other threads is that we're severely restricted in that regard. It's nice to think of a Tokyo-like neighbourhood bisected with narrow nooks, but the current guidelines for things like vehicle access, sightlines, and emergency services require much larger standards. So yeah I think neighbourhoods from scratch can only be 'innovative' in their street-level built form to a certain suburbanized degree. Hopefully this can buck that trend tho.
Click to expand...

It would be very nice if this was the catalyst to move the Planning department off of some of its strongly held non-negotiables about a whole range of stuff (including a few mentioned specifically in this post).
 
WislaHD said:
It's a fair counter argument.

I'm weary as the past several decades of urban planning theory has been devoted to undoing the damage caused by engineer-inspired modernist planning. We seem to be jumping head first into a programmer-inspired neo-modernist era, without any thinking over the consequences of technological innovation on city building.
Click to expand...

Thankfully this experiment is happening on a few acres of brownfield, not an established neighbourhood.

In the Proposal document, one of the more significant elements is an attempt at eliminating strict zoning in favor of heavily mixed buildings. If this can filter into city planning policy, it'll have a significant impact on citybuilding, IMO.
 
someMidTowner said:
If the first 12 acres are successful, the plan is to do this for 800 acres total
Click to expand...
Just thinking, but it sounds like Google will be especially motivated to get moving with developing this site.

We might see things happening here long before other sites along the eastern waterfront.

alklay said:
If that is the case, I am genuinely pleased. This has a tonne of potential to change the city and the world's view of our little village.
Click to expand...
Particularly good timing for the announcement in context of the Amazon bid. There could be excellent synergy between Google here (and later in the Portlands) and an Amazon HQ2 East Harbour site (should that come to being).
 
Last edited:
It is an exciting announcement for this city - and it would be for any city. We want Toronto to be a bold, innovative and forward-thinking city. Innovation requires trying things, making mistakes & learning from them. I hope we go hard for HQ2 as well.

The future needs to manifest somewhere - while America is distracted and otherwise engaged, why not here?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top