News   May 17, 2021
 149     0 
News   May 17, 2021
 388     0 
News   May 17, 2021
 577     0 

U of T: Landscape of Landmark Quality | 0s | KPMB/MVVA

Cityminded

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 1, 2009
Messages
28
Reaction score
11
Yes, the worst part of the winning design is the pedestrian bridge over Hart House Green. It just separates users from the landscape itself. The area under the bridge will become empty and useless, except for having a driveway into the parking garage. I would prefer a design that brings pedestrians down into the green and animates it with a pond and amenities.
 

corys

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 28, 2015
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Of course they pick the shittiest one. This city's capacity to disappoint never fails.

Not the city. The University. The decision was made by the "Landmark Committee" of UofT, which is made up of faculty, students, and volunteers: http://www.updc.utoronto.ca/Assets/...ning/Featured+Projects/landmark-committee.pdf

Edit: That committee may have just been the one that came up with the scope and requirements. I can't find any info on whether or not they were the ones that selected it, but I am still quite sure that the decision came solely from University stakeholders.
 
Last edited:

salsa

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Sep 27, 2013
Messages
8,770
Reaction score
9,468
Location
North York
Well, they picked the least interesting proposal IMO --

This always seems to happen. This year we also got an inferior design for the Fort York bridge, and a less unambitious Ferry Terminal proposal than what could have been.
 

ADRM

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 2, 2015
Messages
5,305
Reaction score
14,461
Couldn't find a separate thread for the secondary plan writ large, but next public meeting for it on April 5 at 6:30pm, 246 Bloor St. W. 5th floor.
 

Student99

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
533
Reaction score
189
Does anyone know if this design has won any awards yet? If not, IMO they really shouldn't be calling it "landmark quality" and should go back to the drawing board.
 

interchange42

Administrator
Staff member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
24,411
Reaction score
23,258
Location
by the Humber
The name of it reflects their intentions. If you don't like the plans or, eventually, the result, you get to call them out on it, but they're not going to change the plan's name.

42
 

Student99

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 18, 2008
Messages
533
Reaction score
189
^ wasn't asking them to change the name lol.
actually, would prefer if they change the design.

Was making the point that if they're going to talk the talk (i.e. give it a name like that), they really should walk the walk (i.e. the design should be stellar- something people would talk about and would want to make a trip to come see).

Take for instance the new Daniels building. That's landmark quality.
Or going away from U of T, even some of the subway stations on the line extension are pretty damn good looking. People were talking about these even before they were constructed.
With this project, the buzz is really ho-hum. I mean, we're only on page 3 here in the forum and this has been under planning for quite a while already.
 

ponyboy

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 3, 2007
Messages
947
Reaction score
927
Location
bloor/bathurst
sadly, the webpage from two pages back with the competing proposals is dead -- https://landmark.utoronto.ca/design-competition/all-entries/

Does anyone have a weblink where the entries can still be viewed?

U of T can be frustratingly opaque, and generally is not welcoming of criticism. I'm sure the committee worked hard, but such assemblies of non-experts often make the most conservative decisions.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,800
Reaction score
20,150
Location
Toronto
sadly, the webpage from two pages back with the competing proposals is dead -- https://landmark.utoronto.ca/design-competition/all-entries/

Does anyone have a weblink where the entries can still be viewed?

U of T can be frustratingly opaque, and generally is not welcoming of criticism. I'm sure the committee worked hard, but such assemblies of non-experts often make the most conservative decisions.

I still have a copy of the files - can repost later.

The name of it reflects their intentions. If you don't like the plans or, eventually, the result, you get to call them out on it, but they're not going to change the plan's name.

42

Though admittedly it is rather corny to use such a snooty name.

AoD
 
Last edited:

modernizt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2014
Messages
1,476
Reaction score
999
I am still quite sure that the decision came solely from University stakeholders.

I am almost certain of it. The most notable recent example is 1 Spadina Circle, where student input was not used (nor was it genuinely sought, until the building was well under construction, at which point it was only consultation re: the layout of the studios, none of which was ultimately used anyway!). Let's just say it's caused a lot of issues.

I would hope that students were consulted/involved in the design process of this new campus landscape, but I highly doubt it went beyond platitudes.
 

AlvinofDiaspar

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
29,800
Reaction score
20,150
Location
Toronto
Two of the four finalists:

JRS/aA/ERA

upload_2018-3-29_19-42-32.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-42-43.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-42-50.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-42-58.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-43-6.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-43-14.png

(U of T/JRS/aA/ERA)

DTAH/MVVA:

upload_2018-3-29_19-44-8.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-44-19.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-44-27.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-44-35.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-44-42.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-44-50.png

(U of T/DTAH/MVVA)

AoD
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-3-29_19-42-32.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-42-32.png
    838.3 KB · Views: 429
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-42-43.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-42-43.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 457
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-42-50.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-42-50.png
    1 MB · Views: 453
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-42-58.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-42-58.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 436
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-43-6.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-43-6.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 432
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-43-14.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-43-14.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 445
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-8.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-8.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 445
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-19.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-19.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 419
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-27.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-27.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 453
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-35.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-35.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 433
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-42.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-42.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 446
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-50.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-50.png
    278 KB · Views: 407

Top