Toronto Nathan Phillips Square + Spirit Garden | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto

[Irishmonk]

From which perspective though, a design perspective? The walkways intrude on views of the square and create a psychological separation from the city by defining an edge that doesn't need definition, an edge that doesn't make sense any more, if it ever did.

Instead, imagine the space entirely paved (no grass/mud patches) and stretching to Queen and Bay streets, the hard edges provided by the surrounding built form of the city itself (Old City Hall, Osgoode and the Sheraton Centre etc.)! I'd be interested to hear somebody justify how this would not be preferred (without resorting to the 'original design' defence).

I look at it this way: if the square was built without the walkways, no-one today would be clamoring for that feature to be included now.

 

[DSC]

I look at it this way: if the square was built without the walkways, no-one today would be clamoring for that feature to be included now.

This is probably true BUT I suspect that for many people that would be because we would realise that our current City will simply not be prepared to spend $$ to maintain them. Rather sad, actually.

 

[MisterF]

From which perspective though, a design perspective? The walkways intrude on views of the square and create a psychological separation from the city by defining an edge that doesn't need definition, an edge that doesn't make sense any more, if it ever did.

Instead, imagine the space entirely paved (no grass/mud patches) and stretching to Queen and Bay streets, the hard edges provided by the surrounding built form of the city itself (Old City Hall, Osgoode and the Sheraton Centre etc.)! I'd be interested to hear somebody justify how this would not be preferred (without resorting to the 'original design' defence).

Agreed, the square would be so much better if it were set up the way you describe. The walkways solve a problem that doesn't exist, and create their own problem of separating the square from the surrounding city. That's the complete opposite of what a public square should be. Really, how many of the world's great squares have walkways/visual barriers surrounding them like NPS? The closest I can think of is St. Peter's, but that's a rather unique case. Squares are almost always open to their surroundings and framed by surrounding buildings and streets.

The walkways are only there because of the misguided mid-century idea of separating pedestrians from vehicles.

 

[freshcutgrass]

I look at it this way: if the square was built without the walkways, no-one today would be clamoring for that feature to be included now.

And if the arches were never built over the reflecting pool, we wouldn't be wanting that element included either. But that's because the idea wouldn't exist, which is why your excuse lacks logic.

Of course the elevated walkways can't be demolished to "improve" NPS. For one thing, it's a critical original design element, and two...it certainly wouldn't be an improvement.

 

[maestro]

And if the arches were never built over the reflecting pool, we wouldn't be wanting that element included either. But that's because the idea wouldn't exist, which is why your excuse lacks logic.

Of course the elevated walkways can't be demolished to "improve" NPS. For one thing, it's a critical original design element, and two...it certainly wouldn't be an improvement.

The walkways were to serve a function. A function that never came to be. I doubt they wouldn't have been conceived were it not for that function. On the other hand, the arches still serve their purpose.

Their purpose were to funnel people off the Plus 15 network into Nathan Phillips Square. People coming into the square from street level was not the intention which is why you have air vents and parking garage entrances blocking most access points. Today, they are a visual barrier to the physical barriers from those same parking garage entrances and air vents. The square was ill conceived from the start and preservation should not overrule improving functionality

 

[acornman]

Just imagine standing in the square and getting a clear view of Old City Hall. Would be a nice vista of one of the city's finest historic buildings. Instead we have the walkway blocking much of it off. Same with looking south from the square.

Walking along Queen or Bay, the walkways don't exactly give a welcoming feeling to anyone passing by.

 

[Tewder]

I look at it this way: if the square was built without the walkways, no-one today would be clamoring for that feature to be included now.

Yes, good point! As I said before the only defence of them is the 'original design' stance, which is slavish and regressive when defending something that doesn't function and/or that is of poor design.

 

[jozl]

The most disappointing part of the delay, and I apologize if it's already been discussed, is the decision NOT to tear down the walkway to The Sheraton Centre on Queen Street. That structure is a horrible eyesore. I would happily volunteer to dismantle that piece of crap myself. Anyone want to help?

 

[DSC]

The most disappointing part of the delay, and I apologize if it's already been discussed, is the decision NOT to tear down the walkway to The Sheraton Centre on Queen Street. That structure is a horrible eyesore. I would happily volunteer to dismantle that piece of crap myself. Anyone want to help?

Yes, ugly and totally useless since there is no access to hotel from it - and hasn't been for as long as I can remember. I think the walkway actually belongs (partly?) to the hotel so demolition or improvement would be a shared responsibility.

 

[adma]

Aside from, perhaps, the Sheraton Centre connector issue, the fact that lamenting the persistence of the walkways is still an going issue here after a *decade* is, well, more proof of why the likes of Urban Shocker ain't here no more....

 

[salsa]

The most disappointing part of the delay, and I apologize if it's already been discussed, is the decision NOT to tear down the walkway to The Sheraton Centre on Queen Street. That structure is a horrible eyesore. I would happily volunteer to dismantle that piece of crap myself. Anyone want to help?

Yes! Where do I sign up?

 

[Torontovibe]

I can't believe they can delay this project for so long and then abruptly, just cancel the remaining parts of it, with no debate or discussion. The way this city operates baffles me sometimes.

 

[Torbram]

Another predictable, underwhelming episode of The City That Can't Shoot Straight.

Absolutely right... pathetic!.

 

[DSC]

I can't believe they can delay this project for so long and then abruptly, just cancel the remaining parts of it, with no debate or discussion. The way this city operates baffles me sometimes.

Though I certainly agree that it is unfortunate that so many of the elements of this project have been delayed and/or cancelled. City staff did report to the various Council committees on all the postponements and cancellations and some were certainly discussed here. I bet we would see equal shock and horror if the budget had ballooned even further in order to do everything promised PLUS the unexpected stuff they found as they started to expose things (like the state of the garage membrane) that needed attention and really needed to be done BEFORE the new 'top layer' was installed. Some parts are already planned for the upcoming years and if you (or we) want other, so far unbudgeted, things done we need to lobby our Councillors to get items like the walkways (improve or remove) added to the next 5-year Capital Budget.

 

[junctionist]

Aside from, perhaps, the Sheraton Centre connector issue, the fact that lamenting the persistence of the walkways is still an going issue here after a *decade* is, well, more proof of why the likes of Urban Shocker ain't here no more....

The walkways are always going to be an issue for the city in general since there's no practical value to them. They cost money to maintain and give no return--not even for leisure. In fact, you could say they detract from the square by creating an unnecessary enclosure. The square's renovation is what the likes of Urban Shocker wanted--a minimalist intervention to restore and enhance the original Modernist design. I liked the idea too since so much great design has been ruined in this city over the past decades before it was fully appreciated. The problem is that after the restoration, the problems of the original square are as apparent as ever.

They moved the Peace Garden, and we now have the coldness and sterility of all that empty concrete paving as in the original design. The jet fountains help, but only in the summer months. The square was designed by a person who specialized in buildings, not landscape design. Its significance is far less than New City Hall, the building. People worldwide have been fascinated by New City Hall but couldn't care less for the public space in front of it (unlike beloved public spaces like NY's Central Park or Krakow's Main Market Square).

It could be almost completely scrapped for a new design by a preeminent landscape architect that harmonizes with city hall and the surroundings. The only feature I'd keep are the arches and reflecting pool, but I'd be open to moving them if necessary.