U of T: New Varsity Stadium (Diamond + Schmitt)

[scarberiankhatru]

Without the bubble, the site would continue to be used for snow storage all winter.

 

[Jarrek]

Could have been much better.

The site can't be used for international sporting events such as soccer or rugby because the field has permanent lines on it.

And what's up with those utilitarian grey walls?

 

[sl64]

Well, this has pretty much sewn up the "Least Ambitious Project of 06/07" award, wouldn't you say?

In a strange way, I'm encouraged by what a waste of space this is... I can't really see this staying up too long - everything about it just seems half-assed and temporary. For now, on the bright side, it'll provider some open space along Bloor and some nice views of the city. What gets me, though, is that UofT can't seem to make up their mind. I don't know the history of this project very well, so I may be way off, but I'm confused by its existence. If they were determined to build a "stadium" (I use the word loosely in this case), why go so half-assed? Why not just renovate the old Varsity Stadium? If the demand for a stadium on this land is so small (and judging by the attendance at UofT sporting events, it is), why build a stadium at all? It's just confusing more than anything else... I'm not really sure what the University is trying to do here, other than hold on to the land. Hopefully it will be redeveloped before long.

 

[Pep'rJack]

The parking lot south of the site belongs to Trinity College.

Ah, I see - but surely some kind of arrangement could have been struck? Or do I seriously underestimate the lack of cooperation between the College and the University?

 

[unimaginative2]

Even if the site to the south were used, there isn't enough room for a full-sized track to be moved south. Perhaps Varsity Arena should also be demolished so that we can fit in a precious Starbucks and Prada on that one block of Bloor. I guarantee that the miniscule rental revenue from one or two shops would hardly offset the added cost. I also can't understand the desire to "redevelop" the site. Does every site downtown need a forest of condos? It's a university, and that field is possibly the most historic sports field in the country. The university has built a fairly attractive seating area which provides more than enough space for any conceivable U of T sports event. We've already built BMO Field, a much better location for international and professional sports.

All that aside, that parking lot is Trinity's best and only spot for expansion. Provost Macmillan's dream -- I'm sure shared by the new Provost -- was to use it for an apartment-style residence.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Even if the parking lot was acquired, Trinity's back field would have to be eaten up to allow retail on Bloor. U of T could also have built a huge complex with the field raised above ground level. Neither will ever happen. Since there is no retail next to or across from the Varsity site, there is no reason why either should happen.

 

[Pep'rJack]

^ Fair enough, but unlike others I'm not concerned about retail per se, but more with there being a building of some kind (residence? media centre type thing?) along Bloor rather than this big open gap.

"...that parking lot is Trinity's best and only spot for expansion. Provost Macmillan's dream -- I'm sure shared by the new Provost -- was to use it for an apartment-style residence."

Why not put that along Bloor?

"that one block of Bloor ... the miniscule rental revenue from one or two shops would hardly offset the added cost."

Like I said, I'm not personally suggesting retail here, but I'm not sure what you mean by this in any case - building retail along Bloor isn't profitable enough to bother...?

I understand what you've both pointed out, but I still find it hard to believe that a design couldn't have been found which allowed for both a mid-rise building along Bloor with a 'full-size' stadium immediately to the south. I may be wrong, but walking around there and eye-balling the whole deal, it certainly looked do-able (without using Trinity's back-field).

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Any building along Bloor would either have to be raised over the track or would require eating up Trinity's field.

What's wrong with a gap? There's a half dozen similar gaps along Bloor in the area.

 

[unimaginative2]

Why not put that along Bloor?

Because people living at a college want to be near their college, library, and dining hall, not a block and a half away. What possible advantage would there be for Trinity to build its new residence along Bloor rather than on property that it already controls right next to its quad.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Talking of Bloor, and the University campus, and the view along this stretch of street, and the pleasing variety of open athletic space contrasted with cultural buildings, and the striking difference between the commercial nature of the north side of Bloor and the academic and cultural nature of the south side ... I just want to remark again - since I haven't done it for a while - how striking and strong the checkered facade of the Clewes and di Castri Woodsworth College is when viewed from east of Avenue Road. Even though it is in the background, it comfortably holds its own as a strong visual statement against the dramatic shards of the ROM.

 

[Pep'rJack]

Any building along Bloor would either have to be raised over the track or would require eating up Trinity's field.

Is the new track significantly larger than the previous stadium? If so, then I get it - if not, then I still don't understand why both a building and a track/stadium could not have been built on the total area provided by the previous stadium and the parking lot, without the field. (The parking lot is still there now, right?)

What's wrong with a gap?

Seriously...?

It's not usually an urban aficionado’s preference for many well-known reasons (street wall, continuity of built form, linking 'hoods, etc.), especially on a street this major and central. That's why parking lots and the like are generally disdained - this can't be news...?

There's a half dozen similar gaps along Bloor in the area.

Which ones are you thinking of that compare to this one in size, and which are effectively useless to passerby as this is, unlike a parkette or something? You wouldn't suggest that a 'gap' like the York Club wall isn't essentially undesirable, would you (outside of its historical value, I suppose)?

Because people living at a college want to be near their college, library, and dining hall, not a block and a half away.

As you point out yourself, that is really not very far at all - we're hardly talking about a huge distance or meaningfully 'segregating' the College here.

What possible advantage would there be for Trinity to build its new residence along Bloor rather than on property that it already controls right next to its quad.

$. I cannot believe that the College would not benefit handsomely from retail or whatever kind of rentable space along Bloor, as surely virtually anyone would. Seems to me that everyone's interests could've been served here: the University's with a new stadium, the College's with a new residence which also would provide substantial continuous revenue, both institutions with reduced costs from simultaneous construction, and the city with an urban contribution along Bloor rather than another long fence.

No? As before, I could be wrong about all of this, but I don't really see how anyone comes out better off the way it's been done. And these are hardly novel thoughts - when this stadium was first discussed on this forum, there were many people bemoaning the obvious lost opportunity to build something along Bloor.

how striking and strong the checkered facade of the Clewes and di Castri Woodsworth College is when viewed from east of Avenue Road.

^ Agree - it's a great contribution and really stands out positively.

 

[unimaginative2]

Is the new track significantly larger than the previous stadium? If so, then I get it - if not, then I still don't understand why both a building and a track/stadium could not have been built on the total area provided by the previous stadium and the parking lot, without the field. (The parking lot is still there now, right?)

For the umpteenth time, a full-sized track and a field just fit in the existing site. That's why the only thing separating the track from Bloor was a brick wall. Unless you plan for this all-important retail to be 6 inches deep, that hardly leaves much room.

It's not usually an urban aficionado’s preference for many well-known reasons (street wall, continuity of built form, linking 'hoods, etc.), especially on a street this major and central. That's why parking lots and the like are generally disdained - this can't be news...?

A sports field with an extremely storied history, not to mention a vital university facility should hardly be compared with a parking lot.

Which ones are you thinking of that compare to this one in size, and which are effectively useless to passerby as this is, unlike a parkette or something? You wouldn't suggest that a 'gap' like the York Club wall isn't essentially undesirable, would you (outside of its historical value, I suppose)?

Useless to passers-by? What does that even mean? A Louis Vuitton shop is pretty useless to me, but that doesn't mean it should be torn down.

$. I cannot believe that the College would not benefit handsomely from retail or whatever kind of rentable space along Bloor, as surely virtually anyone would. Seems to me that everyone's interests could've been served here: the University's with a new stadium, the College's with a new residence which also would provide substantial continuous revenue, both institutions with reduced costs from simultaneous construction, and the city with an urban contribution along Bloor rather than another long fence.

Even if a complex land swap could be concocted, and Trinity were willing to sacrifice its sports field as well as the coherence of its campus, the returns for at best one Starbucks-sized retail space would hardly be a windfall. This isn't Ginza. Basically, you're saying that Trinity should sacrifice its well-used field and best land for expansion in exchange for the rental revenue from a few thousand square feet of retail space. I would think it to be quite an abysmal choice.

I wouldn't hestiate to say that a well-used and historic sports field makes a far greater "urban contribution" than another Starbucks.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

I think the new track + field is marginally bigger than old Varsity Stadium.

I do not agree that this stadium is a useless element in Bloor's landscape or at all comparable to a transitory parking lot for reasons that I and others have mentioned many times in the past...I will say that the kind of obligatory street walls you and others suggest are, basically, overstated in their importance, especially on a stretch of Bloor that does not, will not, and, dare I say it, should not have one.

I'm not 100% pleased with this stadium, but unlike lots of other posters, I do not think there ever was an opportunity here to lose since acquiring land from Trinity or building a massive multi-leveled complex were not in the cards.

 

[Edward Skira]

Retail would not work here anyways. There's no other retail on the south side of Bloor on this stretch. Retail only works when its continuous along a block(s).

 

[ShonTron]

True. The retail on the north side is mostly fast food restaurants (or were, in the case of Mr. Sub, Harvey's and Swiss Pigeon), not particuarly vibrant in that sense.

Does anyone remember if One Bedford was having much in the way of retail?