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

The "Use it or lose it" factor indeed.

I did City Hall for Doors Open. I was amazed at how much outdoor space there is on the third level (where the ramp leads). All of it is unused and closed (I assume) the rest of the time. I also did the observation deck which is closed the rest of the time. A big shame on both counts.

I've lived here for 37 years and I had no clue about both these areas. If the Mayor wants to kick start the city he should start at home. Leave the walkways in place and open/fix those areas closed to us.

I'll try to post photos this evening.
 
I read or heard somewhere that the observation deck of City Hall was closed in the wake of the Texas University tower shooting in 1966. I would think that given modern security methods that this is no longer a valid reason for keeping the observation deck closed.
 
Texas shooting? Boy, that's archaic justification--it's like some of those never-revoked horse'n'buggy by-laws.

Actually, I'm coming around to see the point of those who criticize the walkways--in their present post-neglect state, devoid of furnishings or anything, they're pretty barren and uncongenial. And the worst part is the heaving, pockmarked asphalt--especially unpleasant to encounter on a parched day.

Sure, people criticize NPS and whatever else as "grey" "concrete" etc; but re all that grey concrete supposed bleakness, walkways, pavers and all, at least there's a purposeful and even positive design POV behind it. I'd rather have that concrete down below than that asphalt up above--and up above, I'd rather have that concrete on the sides than the asphalt underfoot. It's a dreadful material for a space of this importance.

So, replace the asphalt with something different yet decent and respectful. Then, maybe, add furnishings, lover's benches, perhaps even unobtrusive plaques, anything for incentive's sake (but for gosh sake, don't overdo it). And presto--a walkway that's a positive "place" again, same as it ever was, yet better than it ever was...
 
Lover's benches? That's tempting fate; people on benches will hidden from view from the square below!

I remember visiting the City Hall observation deck when I moved to T.O in 1970.
 
From Now

Back to square one
Cash woes may sink vaunted Nathan Phillips redesign – just as they did 40 years ago
By DON WANAGAS
Being put in charge of the steering committee for the international design competition to give Nathan Phillips Square a brave new look has given Peter Milczyn a new lease on political life.

"It makes up for all the crap of dealing with my colleagues and civil servants and even constituents with their mundane day-to-day problems," the councillor for Ward 5 (Etobicoke-Lakeshore) says candidly. Finances, though, may end up messing with Milczyn's grand plans, just as they did, it turns out, with the square's current design.

There are many things people have forgotten in the years since renowned Finnish architect Viljo Revell won the 1958 international design competition for City Hall. Construction of the landmark project was finally completed in 1965 – a year after his death from a heart attack at the age of 54.

The most notable memory lapse concerns the fact that what Toronto ended up with was not entirely Revell's original vision.

In the design that won the competition, the elevated walkway that now blocks the view of the square was higher and extended to edge of the sidewalk on the north side of Queen. The reflecting pool was 50 per cent larger, and the podium – the supposed "ceremonial entrance" to City Hall – was twice the height of the surrounding.

"There are a lot of elements where the original design was much better," Milczyn says. But a penny-pinching council insisted on changes being made to keep costs down.

"Apparently, Revell had a lot of emotional arguments with city officials back then," Milczyn adds. "At the time, his family claimed that his heart attack and sudden death were in large measure the result of the stress of all the compromises he was forced to make."

Last week, I joined members of the Beautiful City round table for a tour of the square. Usually I'm suspicious of guided tours because I figure the guides are there to make sure the assembled only see what the powers that be want them to.

But in this instance, the tour guides, reps from the city's real estate division, went out of their way to point out the square's perceived faults.

According to Milczyn, the only features considered sacrosanct are City Hall itself, the ramp leading from the square to the elevated podium below the council chamber clamshell, the reflecting pool and its arches, and sculptor Henry Moore's bronze Archer just outside the building's front doors.

"After that, I would pretty well say, 'Give us your ideas,'" the steering committee chair advises.

But given Toronto's current fiscal outlook, it's not impossible that whoever wins this new design competition – Milczyn's committee wraps up public consultations June 22 – may end up suffering a fate similar to Revell's.
 
I don't quite get the point of the article. Unless I've missed something, the City has been in a "precarious" fiscal situation for quite awhile now.

GB
 
... 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.
 
What about trying to build Revell's original vision? If they're going to change the place, that seems like as good a plan as any.
 
unimaginative:

Unfortunately, there will be quite a bit of changes if one goes with that route, up to and including both the council chamber and the two towers.

It's probably better to focus on the cleaning/restoring the degraded materials, clearing the "clutter" within the square itself (the badly done landscaping on the square, within the area bounded by the walkways, as well as the Peace Garden), while having the focus of the competition on the area between the walkways and the streets, including the various parking ramps around City Hall and the podium level.

GB
 
Re the walkways "blocking the view": actually, the argument is given stronger foundation here by raising the issue of design compromises--that is, the walkway as built and as positioned (as opposed to what Revell had planned) truly does obstruct the view of the Council Chamber from Queen Street in a manner not intended. (And that was raised in a 1989 Baird/Sampson NPS study.)

So, it's not a spiting of the walkway's existence at all, but rather an indication of how its current incarnation strays from Revell's original vision. Which doesn't mean it's advisable to "restore" according to some such "original vision"--the last thing we need is Viollet-le-Duc-goes-Docomomo...
 
I went to the forum at city hall last Saturday. I have been griping about the elevated walkways for over thirty years. They do block the view of the council chambers from Queen Street and are a complete obstruction on the west side (Bay Street), particularly at the intersection north of old city hall, which leads to the Eaton Centre.
I was determined to see the walkway come down. But...then I saw some of Revell's original drawings. Originally, the walkway was to extend south all the way to Queen Street which would allow a clear site line into the square because you would be looking under the barrier, not at it. My complaint isn't only that city hall is hidden from the street but, more troubling, the focal point at street level is the walkway which offers no visual relief and acts as a barricade. Anyway, as the afternoon wore on and I spoke to more people, I came to realize that Revell's original vision for the square is still probably valid (Bay Street and the car ramp to the podium excepted). The square was never meant to be obstructed by the walkway.
There were other surprises too. The Freedom Arches weren't drawn as concentric semi circles. They were semi circles of varying radii, which gave them a wonderful animated look, much better than the static concrete hoops we have there now. The pool was meant to be further west where the concrete bunker is now. The intent was to have the tower from old city hall reflect in the pool. And the podium has great potential.
The forum produced some good ideas. One that got my attention was to install furniture on the walkway and include plaques and photos on the short walls that show an historical "time-line" of the area.
I'm feeling optimistic right now that we just might end up with a beautiful civic square.
 
Interesting points jozl.

As you walk along the south side of Queen Street you can see the domed roof of the council chamber above the walkways at all points ( though not the windows ).

However, in the summer, as you walk along the south side of Queen Street, the foliage of the trees that are planted south of the walkways blocks the domed roof from view at certain points.

When the sidewalk takes a jog south, outside the hotel, the view of City Hall from the south side of Queen Street is also compromised.

I'm always inclined to stand up for a designer and their original vision, especially against the circling armies of beancounters. But sometimes, when cruel fiscal fate takes hold, as it did when they built City Hall, design compromises can sometimes create good results too.

It is sad that the architect of City Hall may have been sent to an early grave as a result, but can any designer realistically expect to be exempted from such reality checks and the design challenges they present? We didn't get the tall, elegant walkways close to Queen Street that Revell wanted, but when you look into the Square on lovely days like today you see folks sitting on benches silhouetted in the shade of the walkways that we did get. When you walk into the Square you get an enclosing sense of the walkways above you, and when you emerge into the Square beyond you get a sense of arrival; a sort of transition happens. It may not be what the architect originally intended, but I think it works. I don't think everything has to always be explained, visually, at a glance, with clear sight lines, all the time. Part of the fun of city life is how spaces reveal themselves, and Nathan Phillips Square has elements of that. I think that might be appropriate for a city that, it has been said, only reveals itself gradually.

One of the things that irritates me most of all about the Square at the moment is that new plaque to the left of the Churchill statue. The top of it isn't even parallel with the ground!
 
Yes building babel, having been a graphic designer for nearly three decades I know all too well that getting 100% of your vision to the final stage is very rare indeed. 70% is probably more the reality, if all goes well. I suspect it's much tougher for architects.
What excites me about this project is that we are aware of Revell's intent, and the city, much to its credit, has asked for input from Torontoians and opened the competition to the world. We have inherited a legacy and are now holding it up to the light to see what it reveals. I can't overstate how important I think this whole process is for Toronto's "psyche".
 
jozl:

I went to the forum at city hall last Saturday. I have been griping about the elevated walkways for over thirty years. They do block the view of the council chambers from Queen Street and are a complete obstruction on the west side (Bay Street), particularly at the intersection north of old city hall, which leads to the Eaton Centre.
Click to expand...

Oh really, I was there as well. Which workgroup were you in? I was at the Pathways and Connections one.

GB
 
jozl: I agree about the collective "psyche" and the importance of symbols in our lives. What could be more symbolic than our great public spaces?

I've always enjoyed the directness and openness of the City Hall building. The council chamber is the heart of city government, and when I stroll under the walkway and into the Square the symbolism of the building hits me - wham!However, I dislike how the Square has become cluttered over the years by too many attempts to "define" a space that I think should be left open and pristine as originally intended.

The ROM's Crystal is a good example of how designs can change: Originally presented as a largely all-glass clad structure it evolved into a smaller, metal-clad building with peek-a-boo glimpses of displays, seen through bold slashes of window. Revell's design changed too. I suppose there's no reason why his original vision can't be realized, if there's the will and the money and do so. But do we wan't to? Hasn't the present design substantially proved itself and become part of our "psyche"?

Once the bones of the thing are restored to their original as-built glory, what more? The walkways are now open - so open up the ramp and let people walk up it and around the council chamber too, as before. Ship the Peace Garden somewhere else. Get rid of the temporary stage structures that seem to have become permanent fixtures in the Square. Let the Square breathe again.

Not everything has to be immediately obvious and fully on view for a design to "work". Graphic designers use the language of design to create interest without giving the game away on the front page. You pose a visual question, you grab the reader's interest and they turn the page to read more and find the answer. It's a process of discovery. A film maker, a novelist, a musician, an actor, visual artists - all play a similar game. I can understand how Revell would have fretted about the compromises he had to make, because he wasn't able to tell the whole story as he intended. But then perhaps he was too visually logical, and underestimated the power of mystery, and the appeal of letting people discover things for themselves.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top