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

When did they close them? I was digging through old photos from ten years ago (July 1995), and I have some shots taken from the bridge to the Sheraton (two ALRVs passing at York St., in front of the old Federal Court building), and on the walkway facing south to Queen.
 
It seems to me that with 'relative' ease and 'relatively' little money NPS could and should be one of the few truly spectacular public spaces and tourist destinations in the city. To say the bones are there already is a gross understatement. More importantly, the approach the city takes with this space will be an important template about how we poceed with urban planning in this city in general. Dundas Square has been a debacle and imcomplete as it is the jury's still out on its success. Still, the Dundas Square project is of another era. A long time has passed since it was planned and put into action. It remains to be seen if anything has been learned by the City. I guess NPS might be a good indication.
 
Catherine Nasmith's report from her email newsletter Built Heritage News - Issue No 64

=============

Five years ago the Ontario Association of Architects awarded Toronto City Hall it’s prestigious 25 year award for buildings that have stood the test of time. Two separate nominations were made, the first time that any building had been nominated by other than the firm that had designed it.

At the time there was uncertainty about the future of Toronto City Hall. Post amalgamation, City Council was deciding whether to use Metro Hall or the remarkable former Toronto City Hall. It took overwhelming pressure from the public and the Toronto Society of Architects to show City Council where City Hall was.

Now it would seem, Council still doesn’t fully understand the international significance of Viljo Revell’s masterpiece and have embarked on a very misguided path towards an international competition to re-design the square.

I have attended two consultation sessions for the square, one open, one closed. The closed session was led by Montreal preservation architect Julia Gershowitz, who has been hired to report on the features in the square that cannot be touched. That discussion was very fruitful, members of the Preservation Board and Preservation Services staff agreed that the main features of the square should be preserved, including the reflecting pool, the arches, the walkway, the ramp, the paving and the Archer. Complaints about maintenance standards and insensitive changes made during repairs voiced…one example being the new café railings, not as well handled as the alterations to the building undertaken by KPMB architects when Council moved back in. There was agreement that the relationship between the edges of the square and the buildings on the other side of the street could be improved including links from the square to Trinity Square, the new Opera House to the west, to Osgoode Hall, and to the Eaton’s Centre. The ramps to the parking garages obstruct pedestrian movement onto the square and the approaches from the north are very unsatisfactory. There were suggestions to use the podium level to better advantage and to restore the ceremonial ramp once used elegantly by Pierre Trudeau as the way to enter the Council Chamber. The other point of agreement was that the Peace Garden should be moved to another location. There was agreement that the stage needs upgrading, but it would be best as a movable demountable structure. Whatever happens in the square should be elegant, discrete and complimentary to the original design.

The comments made at the Preservation Board consultation were strongly echoed by about half of the attendees at the second open consultation, many of them by experts on architecture who had attended because of concern that the square is in danger. Strangely, what was reported in the newspapers were the requests for massive change, all kinds of drastic ideas which if implemented would seriously compromise the integrity of one of Toronto’s great architectural masterpieces. The most threatened element is the walkway around the square, and suggestions for trees and grass flower gardens to replace the paved area are plentiful.

The gap between public opinion and professional opinion is striking, and worrying. The range of opinions can be seen in the comments being gathered on the Toronto Star web-pages. (see below for link if you would care to add your opinion) A question to the professional advisor at the Public Information meeting on how the competition brief will make sense of all the comments was pretty unsatisfactory, suggesting that all opinion will be represented in the brief that goes out to competitors. While assurances have been given that the important features of the square will be preserved in a competition it is not at all clear who will be making the decision about what those are. The consultation process seems a pretty crude tool for such an important place, gathering views from all sides and rolling them into one lumpy unwieldy brief.

Commendable restraint is needed to delicately adjust the edges of Nathan Phillips Square without damaging its key features and Revell’s vision. Commendable restraint is not what you get if you stage an international design competition.

Competitions are won by bold statements, and brash change….is that what Council really wants for Nathan Phillips Square?
 
The onus is on those who suggest that such a course of action (i.e. minimal intervention) to prove it to be superior, and not throw up barriers of "professional superiority". This goes against the very concept of the square being a symbol of public domain. Don't just say - "Revell designed the walkway, therefore it must stay"; prove that it serves a purpose in his vision.

The funny thing, of course, is that I actually agree with most of the points given (except the paving, and to a lesser extent, the arches). And give the process a chance -with the right individuals on the jury, who is to say that proposals that are the most chaste and in keeping with Revell's vision won't be the winner? No one is pushing for individuals like Mel on it, is there?

GB
 
The onus is on those who suggest that such a course of action (i.e. minimal intervention) to prove it to be superior, and not throw up barriers of "professional superiority". This goes against the very concept of the square being a symbol of public domain. Don't just say - "Revell designed the walkway, therefore it must stay"; prove that it serves a purpose in his vision.
Click to expand...

Or apply an even higher standard: prove that it serves Toronto's vision.
 
There seems to be a lot of concern about the removal of the so-called walkways amongst preservationists (so-called because they're not used for walking anymore). Being a bit of a preservationist myself (mostly of pre-WWII architecture though), I can understand the sentiment.

Ultimately, their removal is probably not an absolute requirement for the revitalisation of the square. The square is in a shabby state, I hope we can all agree on that. But fixing the grass, adding some more greenery to contrast the harsh concrete and removing the bunkers may be all that's required to make it presentable again. And for God's sake, open up the walkways... give them a purpose so that people won't want to tear them down... because they are ugly. I wonder if they can be cleaned up a bit too. The pool and the arches must stay... they're too iconic. Perhaps upgrading the benches and tables would be helpful. The bunkers must go... their ugliness cannot be remedied by anything. The cheap fencing around the arches must go as well.

Check out this 360 degree view from the south walkway.

geoimages.berkeley.edu/wwp1204/html/RobertoPortolese.html
 
Number one on my list would be to clean the pool and (re)open it for wading. One of my favourite summer activities used to be to take off my shoes and relax on the edge with my feet in the water, while having a snack or reading. I would always be in good company, and there would always be children playing in the pool.

Years ago a security guard told me not to do that, and signs went up telling people to stay out. The excuse given had to do with the water being dirty and chemicals being put in the water as a result. At any rate, it's a crime to have such a nice pool in such a high profile location, and to prohibit people from enjoying it.
 
Excellent point. Corny as it may sound, where better to offer a wading pool to kids and adults on a hot day. Imagine the optics... this is your city... enjoy it.

Sometimes the small things are forgotten... "please walk on the grass".
 
Footnote: let's be really nuts and take it a step further. Excavate, fill ala wading/lap pool, add 2 lifeguards... where on earth have you seen citizens swimming and splashing and enjoying city hall... skating is okay, so the breast stroke should work fine.
 
Well, I was just down at Nathan Phillips this afternoon, and lo and behold, there were kiddies playing in the pool.

I'm hoping it's not just that it's just the beginning of warm weather and that they are slow to get the warning signs out...
 
Being a bit of a preservationist myself (mostly of pre-WWII architecture though), I can understand the sentiment.
Click to expand...

Interesting you make a point of singling out pre-war; because to most self-styled conscientious Joe Blows out there, that is what "preservationism" is about. Saving old buildings that look old, seem old, etc. To whom modernism is, by and large, "incomprehensible", or something that "needs fixing". (And your emphasis on the walkways' "ugliness" proves as much.)

It's like singling yourself out as a bit of an Canadian art connoisseur because you like the Group of Seven. But anyone remember the whole McMichael Gallery controversy a few years ago, and how that ballooned into a rather unfortunate progressive/reactionary/elitist/populist donnybrook over what, exactly, constituted "true" Canadian art in the spirit of the Group Of Seven?

As w/Go7 conoisseurship, "preservationism's" worst enemies can be from within. I mean, there's a point there; perhaps most A. Y. Jackson fanatics really are discomfited by "modern art"--but why pander to them?

Honestly, I can see the NPS "walkway issue" becoming a modern-architectural-heritage version of the McMichael controversy--that is, as a rallying point for a reactionary-hack pseudo-populist attack on the vaunted Failure of the Modern Movement. It'd be like the AGO packing away the Claes Oldenburg hamburger-type stuff because of all the what-is-this-shite visitor's comments.

That, I feel, is the gist of Cathy Nasmith's argument; that is, be very, very, very careful w/how you use raw mass opinion in delicate cases like this. Now, it's good to highlight that "there is a problem", whatever it may be, and NPS could use a good burnishing for its 40th, and that the public's an essential part of the process, it shouldn't just be left to "qualified professionals". But there's a thin line between genuinely constructive democratic debate and tyranny-of-the-majority pandering.

And oh yeah, the "international competition" part is an entirely unnecessary waste of resources, which (disastrously)? presupposes a bigger problem than there is. Even if the final upshot is like Lisa Simpson getting the same trusty old hairstyle after trying several outlandish alternatives--why a competition?
 
And oh yeah, the "international competition" part is an entirely unnecessary waste of resources, which (disastrously)? presupposes a bigger problem than there is. Even if the final upshot is like Lisa Simpson getting the same trusty old hairstyle after trying several outlandish alternatives--why a competition?
Click to expand...

Why not? Considering (I don't believe) that any of the firms involved in the project exists any longer, wouldn't it be wise to have an open, international competition for solutions, with certain preconditions?

I think I detect a sense of fear - fear of the possiblity that intelligent solutions and improvements not congruent with the most conservative of preservationists might come up.

GB
 
I think I detect a sense of fear - fear of the possiblity that intelligent solutions and improvements not congruent with the most conservative of preservationists might come up.
Click to expand...

Well, it depends what you mean by "conservative" preservationists. After all, there's the "leave well enough alone" kind of "conservative"; then there's the anti-OCAD/Graduate House NIMBY sort of "conservative"; and then there's the McMichaelesque reactionary-fart sort of "conservative"; and then there's the middlebrow-suckers-for-ye-olde-schlock-a-la-Unionville sort of "conservative". And roughly speaking, there's a sliding scale from the former to the latter as far as sympathy to NPS's whole gestalt goes.

Maybe under these circumstances, "conservative" (so often abused as it's been over the past quarter century) is the wrong word to use...
 
Interesting you make a point of singling out pre-war; because to most self-styled conscientious Joe Blows out there, that is what "preservationism" is about. Saving old buildings that look old, seem old, etc. To whom modernism is, by and large, "incomprehensible", or something that "needs fixing". (And your emphasis on the walkways' "ugliness" proves as much.)
Click to expand...

And your point is?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top