Toronto Toronto City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | Perkins&Will

building babel..."... and here's another writer who perpetuates the myth that the elevated walkway " blocks the view of the square". How can it block the view into the square if it is an ELEVATED walkway with supports that are angled sideways and well spaced out? Sigh."

Does our notorious elevated hwy not block the city from the harbour? Elevated does not always prove to give us an unobstructed view.
 
Walkway has got to go... However well-intentioned, it clearly doesn't work. Something should also be done about the ramp.
 
New City Hall has got to go... However well-intentioned, it clearly doesn't work. Restricted floor plates, southern exposures, etc. Ask the people who work there; it's plainly, aggravatingly non-functional.
 
^ Attempt at humour?

There's a reason no one talks about redoing City Hall. It's because it does work... it's aged well and is a landmark we can all be proud of.

Why is there talk of redoing NPS? Because it's a shabby mess that's aged very poorly.
 
There's a reason no one talks about redoing City Hall. It's because it does work... it's aged well and is a landmark we can all be proud of.
Click to expand...

Symbolically, yes. Functionally, though, it's always been problematic; and yes, a lot of the problems come as a result of the architecture. Ask the people who work there.

If "nobody" talks about redoing City Hall, it's because (a) they know they'd have to swallow their grievances lest they be pilloried by the architecture/heritage police, and (b) it was already deferentially "redone" by KPMB post-mega-amalgamation, so it's not as "unfresh" as it was. But if this whole question had come forward a pre-mega pre-KPMB decade ago, the discussion re City Hall itself might take on a different tone, especially if "taken public" a la NPS today. Then as now, who knows the damage a well-meaning but underinformed vox populii web-discussion-board-type amateur may wreak in the name of proposed "improvements". (And remember, too, that a lot of the intelligent spin for Metro Hall over City Hall as seat of mega-government was based upon functional reasoning--face it; in raw contemporary terms, Metro Hall "works better", euphemistic as that might sound.)

Why is there talk of redoing NPS? Because it's a shabby mess that's aged very poorly.
Click to expand...

And as has been stated over and again, might the so-called poorly-aging shabbiness be more a matter of haphazard upkeep than anything? And perhaps any necessary "redoing" is more a matter of belatedly taking what KPMB did within and applying it without, so to speak?

Ultimately, NPS is no more or less "dysfunctional" than the building it serves as the integral forecourt for--and integral as it is, it's no more or less beloved for/despite the fact. (It only seems "less important" because such spaces almost invariably play a misunderstood second fiddle to the buildings they serve.)

So, my "attempt at humour" is nothing more than a means of highlighting one of those many reasons why "qualified professionals" shudder at the amateurish so-called bright ideas perpetuated within forums like this...
 
adma:

re: City Hall

Quite frankly, the City Hall had been redone even prior to the KPMB stint in the 90s (Parkin in the 70s, for example - and that was quite the hack) - in neither case was the work particularly superior, IMO.

And as has been stated over and again, might the so-called poorly-aging shabbiness be more a matter of haphazard upkeep than anything? And perhaps any necessary "redoing" is more a matter of belatedly taking what KPMB did within and applying it without, so to speak?
Click to expand...

Some aspects of it is haphazard upkeep - other aspects, like the extensive access ramps (at the N/S/W edges of the site), the mess on the western edge isn't. That's where there is potential for a professional competition exists.

Ultimately, NPS is no more or less "dysfunctional" than the building it serves as the integral forecourt for--and integral as it is, it's no more or less beloved for/despite the fact. (It only seems "less important" because such spaces almost invariably play a misunderstood second fiddle to the buildings they serve.)
Click to expand...

That doesn't mean room for improvement doesn't exist for each. Taking the puritanical stance of architecture for its' own sake is the surest way to see a building/space come into disuse.

Then as now, who knows the damage a well-meaning but underinformed vox populii web-discussion-board-type amateur may wreak in the name of proposed "improvements". (And remember, too, that a lot of the intelligent spin for Metro Hall over City Hall as seat of mega-government was based upon functional reasoning--face it; in raw contemporary terms, Metro Hall "works better", euphemistic as that might sound.)
Click to expand...

AND

So, my "attempt at humour" is nothing more than a means of highlighting one of those many reasons why "qualified professionals" shudder at the amateurish so-called bright ideas perpetuated within forums like this...
Click to expand...


This kind of ivy-tower snobbishness perpetuated on your part is exactly what gave professionals the bad names that it doesn't deserve, and does great harm to the cause.

Oh, I hasten to add, if the forum is so "amateurish", as you would call it, why come here? An itch you can't scratch, perhaps? Or is it that your ideas aren't terribly palatable to the "professionals" as such?

GB
 
Some aspects of it is haphazard upkeep - other aspects, like the extensive access ramps (at the N/S/W edges of the site), the mess on the western edge isn't. That's where there is potential for a professional competition exists.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean room for improvement doesn't exist for each. Taking the puritanical stance of architecture for its' own sake is the surest way to see a building/space come into disuse.
Click to expand...

And who says any of this cannot be addressed by the "KPMB" approach? Remember that their work on City Hall wasn't exactly fly-in-amber; it included such things as a different colour palette, the council chamber bridges, etc--stuff that made the place a little more "functional" than it was, albeit not at aesthetic cost. (And even a few hyperactive "purists" might take issue with such things as the colour changes.)

In fact, it's quite likely IMO that extending such an approach out to NPS would involve addressing the parking ramps, the western edge, etc, rather than leaving too much well enough alone.

Remember: nothing is absolutely pure. Even City Hall is architecturally overrated...;-)
 
Yesterday I walked along the south side of Queen from Bay to University and looked across at the Square. There was a noisy celebration going on - Phillipine Independance Day - but the view of what was happening - what I assume Don Wanagas means by "the view of the square" - wasn't blocked by the elevated walkways, but by the tourist buses and food vending vehicles parked here and there on both sides of the street. You could hear the celebration going on but you could only catch small glimpses of it.

But is that necessarily a "bad thing"? In fact, as I walked by, I overheard a couple talking about what it might be ... and they crossed over and into the Square to find out! Again, not everything has to be immediately obvious for it to "work". People like finding solutions for themselves.

I too crossed the street and walked under the walkway into the south east corner of the Square. My view of the rotunda / council chamber was completely hidden by the Peace Garden trees.

Comparing the elevated Gardiner Expressway ( an ugly scar cutting across the city that was built without any thought to visual harmony with the surrounding city ) to the elevated walkways at Nathan Phillips Square ( which are an integral part of the design of our main civic space ) is like comparing rotten apples to oranges.
 
babel:

Indeed, the walkway isn't much of a visual barrier when compared to the absolutely unruly vegetation and landscaping on the western side of NPS, the two rather ill thought out patches of green in the square proper, and the general clutter (eg. tour buses) in the vicinity.

adma:

Yes, I realize the KPMB approach isn't exactly "cast in amber" - but I do found some of it to be wanting. The two bridges, for example, is definitely not terribly well done (other than doing its' utmost to appear invisible, and at the same time managed to look very clumsy, esp. the interior). This is exactly why there should be design competitions bounded by strict guidelines - just to see what alternatives can be provided given restrictions and established needs. Call it a design competition for details, perhaps?

GB
 
"Symbolically, yes. Functionally, though, it's always been problematic; and yes, a lot of the problems come as a result of the architecture. Ask the people who work there."

That's funny, I HAVE talked to people who work there about it, including folks in Economic Development and a fair chunk of the Planning department. Of course, although the reason for the discussion may not be City Hall, I just have to ask those folks about it. Other than a comment wishing that the AC was a bit more powerful due to the south-facing windows, all comments have been highly positive. I get the feeling that Adma is pulling this "criticism" out of his ass, or at the very least exaggerating in order to try and make a point.
 
Ah, but maybe you're working with an "enlightened", or "indifferent", or otherwise Stockholm-Syndrome'd, sample;-) (Myself, I've still heard "criticism from within"--mind you, a lot of it's probably been muted since the KPMB-era retrofit.)

And, keeping in mind where I snuck in my original (and admittedly facetious) "City Hall doesn't work" thingie, how is it any more or less "representative" than the anti-walkway argument? Look. Compare blixa's post above to babel's, and guess which one's more compelling.

Exaggerating? Mmmm...could be
 
adma:

Actually, blixa's point also been elaborated by some well-argued proponents, such as Ron Thom's critique of the City Hall in Canadian Architect when it opened.

GB
 
babel:

Actually yes, he did - though I think after 40 years, the walkway didn't prove to be the barrier he thought it would be.

He is right, however, in pointing out that details at the City Hall isn't as well handled as it should have been.

GB
 
Like all of us, with our critiques of unbuilt or partly built projects on forums like this, Thom would have done his best to visualize the future and what it might hold, and sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't.

Re: walkways. The options seem to be:

* Tear it down and rebuild it exactly as Revell wanted.
* Tear it down.
* Restore it to as-built condition.
* Monkey with it ( glass sides, flashing lights, bells, whistles, plaques and seats, running track, whatever ) because "it doesn't work" and must be made to work, dammit!
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top