[AlvinofDiaspar]

Re: Innovative Design Competition - Visual Transformation!

frizzed:

You will have to host the picture (try www.photobucket.com for a free account). Once you do, you can post it here by using this code:

<img noborder>URL of the picture</img> (Replace <> with [ ])

AoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Re: Innovative Design Competition - Visual Transformation!

From the Post:

One scheme stands out
Five finalists unveil their plans for reviving the waterfront

Robert Ouellette Toronto Unbuilt, National Post
Published: Friday, May 19, 2006

West 8 rids the city of the Gardiner Expressway, a tactic that does more to enhance the waterfront in the long term than perhaps any other element of its design. It also tackles such legacy issues as Toronto's single greatest tourist attraction, the CN Tower

- - -

The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corporation is living up to its name, thanks in large part to outgoing Chair Robert Fung. Five finalists in the corporation's waterfront design competition unveiled their solutions at the BCE Place Atrium on Monday evening and Toronto may never be the same.

The scheme from WASAW (Stan Allen, Sarah Whiting and Ron Witte) is reminiscent of a 1960s super-graphic. Coloured ribbons snake their way along the waterfront turning into folded, ribbon-like buildings. While the proposal's graphic design is compelling, its singular design vision is ultimately tiresome. There are, after all, parts of the waterfront worth saving.

The Foster Architects scheme may have escaped from the computer of the designer who last worked on one of their Dubai projects. The three massive and seemingly identical piers, terminated by multi-storey iconic buildings, demote the rest of the waterfront to the level of background noise. There is not enough Toronto left in this scheme. Maybe the intent is to bring an international flavour to the city; however, in the end, it seems contrived.

Somewhere between these extremes is the Tod Williams Billie Tsien Architects and Martinez Lapena-Torres concept. Unfortunately, the designers further reduce Toronto's shrinking harbour by dropping another island archipelago into it. While their tactic is a Venice-like solution, it devalues the existing harbour's edge and will almost certainly ensure that in the future (maybe one or two generations from now) some government agency will get the bright idea that they can make money by filling in the gaps and selling property.

In addition, Williams Tsien and Lapena-Torres bring the things disliked most about the waterfront -- elevated concrete structures -- down to the water's edge. Are massive concrete canopies needed near the waterfront even if they do generate electricity from attached solar panels? If solar generated power is essential, why not just add collectors to nearby, unused rooftops. The electricity generated can be sold for power credits. Still, it is easy to see how the designers wanted to offer a historical vision of the harbour. Their scheme is bold but somewhere along the way, it lost its focus.

Two schemes knit together existing waterfront elements in a way that enhances and unites them.

P.O.R.T. (Project On Revitalizing Toronto) was plagued by technical problems during their presentation, but if it can happen to Bill Gates it can happen to anyone. Their solution is probably the most sensitive to finer-grain conditions, although the point columns that terminate Toronto's major north-south axes are undeniably strong urban-scale gestures.

The tall point columns are located about 100 metres into the water. Depending on the temperature and wind conditions, they animate the harbour by swaying and changing colour. Some of the other elements, however, suggest the team was trying to be too diverse in its design thinking. The result lacks overall cohesiveness.

West 8 & du Toit Allsop Hillier's proposal is convincing possibly because of its unabashedly Canadian iconography. They seem to have the site-specific details right as well. The timber-frame bridges do offer a distinct Canadian design flavour. Their decision to shift car traffic north of the existing light-rail lines allows for a continuous, tree-lined boulevard from one end of Queen's Quay to the other. More importantly, they rid the city of the Gardiner Expressway, a tactic that does more to enhance the waterfront in the long term than perhaps any other element of their design.

West 8 also tackles such legacy issues as the base of Toronto's single greatest tourist attraction, the CN Tower. They also make Yonge Street the obvious terminus of many harbour related activities. The floating, biomass maple leaf in the centre of the harbour may stretch the Canadian identity a bit too far but, then again, it is probably a perfect way to attract foreign visitors to the city.

All of this work to enhance the waterfront may be lost if the Ontario government insists on building a power plant on the nearby port lands, though. Why ask five great design teams to imagine a waterfront that sustains the harbour, and then plant a symbol of our lack of a sustainable energy vision just metres away?

robert@forumbureau.com

Robert Ouellette publishes the daily blog www.readingtoronto.com. He is the president of Forum Bureau, a strategic consulting and Internet firm in Toronto.
© National Post 2006
_________________________________________________

Personally, I can't stand the themes of the West 8 scheme at all - it's crass and silly, playing to the tired cliches of "Canadianess" that frankly have little or nothing to do with Toronto. And why bother putting that Maple Leaf marsh in the centre of the Inner Harbour, when once should encourage intensified usage of *real* environments like the Islands?

I have to root for Foster - their scheme mirrors/meshes well with the dignified approach that aA used for the Harbourfront boardwalk. I don't necessarily buy all their design moves, but as a whole, it is calm and classy.

AoD

 

[frizzed]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

Thanks AoD. I'm going to try that. Appreciate it! And I agree with your statements about Robert Ouellette's feelings on the waterfront.

 

[beaconer]

Re: Innovative Design Competition - Visual Transformation!

beaconer:

I would not be too concerned with the costs of the Maple Leaf islands. They are not even remotely in the same scale as the Palm islands in Dubai. The largest leaf would probably just fill the tip of one palm.

In addition, with all the condo construction there is plenty of earth that already needs to be shipped and parked somewhere - that is how Ontario Place was made.

Yes it is obviously not the same scale as the Palms, but you don't think the cost of building something like this is a whole lot of money? How much would you project the cost to be to build, maintain, and power an island (for lack of a better term)? I ask because I don't know, but I only guess that is it a whole lot of money.

The Palms in Dubai as well as the rest of the developments there have very deep pockets which make buiding something like that a reality, Toronto does not have that luxury.

 

[adma]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

I find this divide interesting--that is, a lot of outside "experts" are going for West 8, yet UT's gravitating more t/w Foster. (Must be something to do with sock-it-to-me skyline/cityscape features resonating more plainly with the skyscraper/development-geek crowd...)

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Re: Innovative Design Competition - Visual Transformation!

Here is another piece from Reading Toronto that illustrates what adma is saying:

2006 05 20
Toronto Waterfront Innovation - Comments
Keith Loffler of Keith Loffler McAlpine Architects writes:

Here are my comments on the competition entries, in order of their presentation on 15 May 2006:

P.O.R.T
This entry does not even start to address the real issues - i.e. creation of a continuous uninterrupted promenade along the water's edge, and the knitting together of the disparate elements currently existing along the inner harbour. In fact, their scheme makes matters worse - by adding more disparate features of questionable value, and, to add insult to injury, by adding an extra slip that creates yet another obstacle. The only slightly interesting element is the lighting proposal, but it will date very quickly.

My vote - negative.

WASAW
This project is an inelegant joke. There is absolutely nothing of value in it. The 'cultural buoys' are located at the back of the slips - in the worst location to capitalize on the view and beauty of the harbour. Just think if they had built the Sydney Opera House at the back of a bay...

My vote - negative - the worst.

FOSTER
This scheme, like schemes 1 and 2, makes the fatal mistake of concentrating on north-south links into the city, while ignoring the real issue - making a continuous east-west promenade. North-south links are important - they are the means of access. But 'getting there' is at best half the fun, not ALL of the fun. Beyond that, The sail-like buildings terminating their north-south links will destroy the natural beauty of the inner harbour, and, worse, do not respond to an identifiable need.

My vote - negative.

TOD WILLIAMS and BILLIE TSIEN
They are obsessed with 'returning the water's edge to its natural state', to the point where they are suggesting the construction of a new island to achieve it. That idea is totally nutty. If there is one place in the waterfront system where an urbanized hard water's edge is required, it is along the Inner Harbour.

My vote - negative - they are destroying the harbour in order to save it.

WEST-8
This is the only scheme that starts to address the critical issue of creating a continuous uninterrupted promenade, and thereby knitting the disparate elements of the waterfront together. They actually propose to bridge across many of the slips. It is a great pity that bridges are not shown at two of the most important points where they should occur - at York Slip and Jarvis Slip. Those bridges must be added.

Other great ideas in their scheme:

• Linking the CN Tower to the Promenade. That idea in itself should make them the winners....
• The funky wavy treatment of the slip heads,
• The red 'lighting from hell'
• The Queen's Quay street layout.
• The inclusion of large scale Canadian trees in the streetscape.
• Moving the ferry terminal.
• The portable piers

The items I don't care too much for are:

• The maple leaf island - it's too corny.
• The wood fetish.

My vote - in favour.


SUMMARY
It is really sad when an international competition is held and only one team, WEST-8, even addresses the real problem. I do not blame the contestants. I blame the TWRC.....

The WEST-8 scheme comes closest to the design parameters for the inner harbour I set out some months ago and which are attached once again, to ensure they are not overlooked.

On the implementation side, the TWRC wants to start by building the heads of four slips. That is a mistake. The first elements to be built should be the bridges. Those slipheads, by themselves, will do nothing to improve our enjoyment of the inner harbour.
_________________________________________________

Looking at Foster's plan, I've noticed at least one pedestrian bridges (across Spadina). Beyond that, I wouldn't underplay the importance of North-South connections - that, above all else, is the reason why the waterfront is underused; not because of the fact there is no "there" at the edge of the water, but the reality it is unpleasant to get there from the city in the first place.

On the issue of the sails "destroying" the "natural beauty of the inner harbour", honestly if one is so intent of fetishizing nature, they should proposal levelling the large number of artificial structures strewn along the lakefront - it was never, ever natural in the first place; if you want that aspect, head out to the outer banks of the Toronto Islands.

The sails, as per the first display board, serves an extremely important function - i.e. a visual terminus that draws people to the illusive "there".

Visualizing Foster's scheme: Looking south, I see the sails - yup, the waterfront.

Visualizing West 8's scheme: Looking south, I see, umm...nothing. The old problem thus remains.

AoD

 

[frizzed]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

^^^^^^^^^

All great points AoD!

 

[SD2]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

West 8 would be a good selection provided they could refine the cheesier elements (maple leafs in the harbour, etc.).

 

[cassiusa]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

Would the City (or TWRC) have legal problems if they decided that none of the proposals should be realized?

If these 5 are the best of all the proposals I'd hate to see the others.

 

[frizzed]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

I voted for the Sail Structures. They're unique, impressive, serene and beautiful. And since the arhcitects are supposed to rework the waterfront, those buildings will nicely connect the water with the land, visually and emotionally. They're nice eye-catchers and LEAVE ENOUGH ROOM FOR TREES, air and FREE SPACE in between. And they will definately be remembered by people and will give the city a friendly
and exciting image even from far away.

 

[MetroMan1000]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

We'll know by this week what our waterfront will look like. The decision is May 27 correct?

 

[jcapitain]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

^It says May 31st on The Star website and I'm not aware of any changes.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

Hume on the waterfront, again...from the Star:

Time to wake `sleeping beauty' waterfront
May 22, 2006. 01:00 AM
CHRISTOPHER HUME

A new Sobeys opened last week at Queen's Quay Terminal and suddenly Harbourfront residents are acting as if they'd never seen a supermarket before.

Who can blame them? Finally, the area they inhabit is becoming a neighbourhood. It's true a Loblaws opened at the foot of Jarvis St. a few years ago, but that's not quite within easy walking distance.

Sobeys' arrival marks an important shift in direction of a district that has been treated strictly as a summer-only tourist destination. Now it has been recognized that this is a place where people actually live. It's about time, too. Torontonians may be reluctant to admit it, but the concrete condo curtain that has descended along Queens Quay W., and that everyone loves to hate, is now home to thousands.

It's a funny thing about the waterfront. A similar scenario was played out in the late 1980s and early `90s at the west end of Queens Quay. Back then, the issue was the need for a school and community centre. Finally they were built, near the old silos at the bottom of Bathurst St.

In both cases, evolution happened backwards. But if the international design competition launched recently by the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. works out, development could start to take place in a more organized fashion.

Indeed, according to Adriaan Geuze, the Dutch landscape architect whose firm, West 8, submitted the most compelling proposal to the competition, the waterfront's potential is enormous.

"It is a sleeping beauty waiting to be awakened," he says. "What the waterfront needs is a village-like neighbourhood with small-scale buildings where you find shops, bars, nightclubs, institutions ... But at street level there's little creativity. Queens Quay is very unattractive. The contemporary development is mono-cultural; it needs diversity. We would change Queens Quay by pushing cars to the northern half of the street. The southern half would be set aside for pedestrians and cyclists ... This lakefront is calling out for people walking, biking, rollerblading."

Geuze also envisions a water's-edge promenade between 15 and 18 metres wide, with bridges across the slips. His scheme emphasizes north-south connections with the city, including a grand boulevard that would extend from the CN Tower to the Simcoe St. slip.

Then there's that little matter of trees.

"I was shocked," he admits, "I couldn't believe my eyes; there are no trees on the waterfront. And this is Canada! Even the Music Garden doesn't have enough tall trees. The social duty of every landscape architect is to plant trees."

Geuze is absolutely right, of course. His "green foot" would restore some much-needed greenery to our poor, paved-over waterfront.

"We need to deliver roots and connections," he argues. "For me, Canada is a country of gorgeous lakes and waterfronts. Canadians love the water. But Toronto turns its back on the waterfront. Though the competition is focused on the slip heads, we were concerned that we couldn't find a solution without having a larger concept in mind."

The slip heads, where road, sidewalk and water meet, are bottlenecks. The $20 million competition was organized to seek solutions to this and other problems. Entries were also asked to address a continuous water's-edge promenade, lighting, open space, transit, aquatic habitat and Queens Quay.

That's a lot to do for $20 million, too much, in fact. The best hope is that the winning scheme will be so compelling it will make the rest inevitable. West 8 has the power to do that.

In the meantime, it's important that politics not get in the way. Mayor David Miller's sudden interest in the waterfront is welcome, but the point of the exercise is not to get him votes next November. It would be great to see him deliver for once, but it's too important an issue to be left in the hands of a city hall dreamer facing an election.

AoD

 

[frizzed]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

The Star and Adriaan Geuze of West 8 are really beginning to annoy the hell out me (along with those voting for the West 8 design). With The Star still kissing West 8 @$$ and Adriaan Geuze still going on about what Canada is all about (because some from The Netherlands would know), I wish they both would just shut up. If the West 8 design is chosen and they somehow make the waterfront stereotypically Canadian (floating maple leaves?!?!? People, wake up!) , I am going to avoid it at all costs. It's going to do the exact opposite of something they hope to accomplish, attract people to the water.

 

[JoeyCuppa]

Re: Robert Fung Leaving TWRC/Central Waterfront Designs

The West 8 maple leaf thing is cheesy, but the reason everyone likes it is that it brings down the Gardiner and plans for people, public transit, and cyclists... it makes the waterfront livable.

While those "flames" of the other design are pretty, they could easily be big ugly un-used monstrosities in 30 years.