[jozl]

As I mentioned before in an earlier post, back in 1972 when I was an art school student, I took photos of the elevated walkways for an architect who, at the time, felt the walkways were a design flaw. The architect (who's name I don't remember) made a presentation to City Hall where he proposed having the walkways demolished. He felt that they cut NPS off from the surounding area and blocked the view of the new City Hall from Queen and Bay streets. He also felt that NPS is already sufficiently framed by the surrounding buildings. I agree. I also attended a charrette which was held at City Hall a couple of years before the design competition to revitalize NPS was held. I expressed my opinion about the walkways (tear them down) at the charrette and I can tell you that I was in the minority. The majority (of designers and architects) felt strongly that the original walkways should remain but get renovated. I haven't changed my mind, I still think the walkways should be removed. I think NPS would be much improved without them. For both political and budgetary reasons I don't think they will be removed in my lifetime anyway. Too bad, City Hall is an architectural masterpiece. NPS is not.

 

[In Sequins]

Still, no one has given a detailed explanation as to why the walkways should be maintained. Original or not, that doesn't mean they're a great aspect of the square; nor does their lasting presence mean they must be preserved in perpetuity. Originality, in an of itself, isn't always a good thing. Who cares if the walkways were there from the beginning? Why does that, alone, mean they should stay? How would Nathan Phillips Square be negatively affected by their removal?

 

[greenleaf]

I have grown to appreciate the walkways.

They are weird. But they are unique. I don't recall other prominent public spaces in other cities that have that feature, and that uniqueness makes them attractive to me. Also, much like old buildings that find new uses, at some point I think Toronto will find a fantastic use for them. I don't know what that use is, but I'm willing to wait. I'm not saying something like the High Line should go there, but look what happened there with an elevated space. There's still time for this aspect of City Hall and this public space to be useful. In the meantime, keep City Hall weird.

 

[adma]

In the meantime, keep City Hall weird.

Exactly.

 

[MisterF]

I don't recall other prominent public spaces in other cities that have that feature

That might be because they look at Nathan Phillips Square and see that they're completely pointless. A relic from a short-lived, misguided planning trend that hurts the square more than it helps it. The fact that no other city has copied the walkways speaks volumes.

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

The elevated walkways have always been the thorniest issue in this thread. They do cut the Square off from it's surroundings, mistake or not, and they do present a somewhat unwelcoming feeling from the sidewalks - but that's the design so we live with it, they aren't going anywhere. Aside from necessary maintenance of the walkways, in the future I'd like to see the undersides of the walkways enhanced (lose the aluminum slats) and better lit underneath using an array of LED's that can be left on all night without breaking the hydro bill and leaving the Square in the dark after midnight. They could also be appropriately programmed for special events in the Square throughout the year. The materials that welcome us under the walkways matter too. Combined, I think the walkways could be re-imagined and better integrated as part of the Square, and as alternative spaces to move in and out of the Square.

 

[adma]

As I mentioned before in an earlier post, back in 1972 when I was an art school student, I took photos of the elevated walkways for an architect who, at the time, felt the walkways were a design flaw. The architect (who's name I don't remember) made a presentation to City Hall where he proposed having the walkways demolished. He felt that they cut NPS off from the surounding area and blocked the view of the new City Hall from Queen and Bay streets. He also felt that NPS is already sufficiently framed by the surrounding buildings. I agree. I also attended a charrette which was held at City Hall a couple of years before the design competition to revitalize NPS was held. I expressed my opinion about the walkways (tear them down) at the charrette and I can tell you that I was in the minority. The majority (of designers and architects) felt strongly that the original walkways should remain but get renovated. I haven't changed my mind, I still think the walkways should be removed. I think NPS would be much improved without them. For both political and budgetary reasons I don't think they will be removed in my lifetime anyway. Too bad, City Hall is an architectural masterpiece. NPS is not.

Though that was 1972, remember. City Hall was still a bit "fresh". And if one were to offer in 1972 that 50s Peter Dickinson office buildings would one day be embraced as "heritage", that would have elicited a few horselaughs, I reckon...

 

[fiendishlibrarian]

Just for shits and giggles, perhaps someone adept with Photoshop can perform their magic and "re-imagine" the square without the walkways. No bells and whistles, just a simple elimination, perhaps with photos like these for a base:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3f/Nathan_Phillips_Square_from_above.jpg

http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/defaul...cles/2013/05/7515/urbantoronto-7515-25848.jpg

http://www.torontotransforms.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/d.NathanPhillipswalkways2000web.jpg

 

[adma]

And re those who are concerned about too much concrete hard surface: it's all in the way one uses it, of course.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

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

What's the Plus 15 network?

 

[greenleaf]

What's the Plus 15 network?

I originally read that as the pen15 network, and I laughed.

I think it's a reference to this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/+15

 

[hawc]

Just for shits and giggles, perhaps someone adept with Photoshop can perform their magic and "re-imagine" the square without the walkways.

 

[interchange42]

Yuck. Definitely benefits from the walkways.

Well, you can't really decide that based on that mangled photo, but attempt appreciated.

Reading that 'the only defence of the walkways is that they are already there' and 'there's no use for them' is tiresome rubbish. Just because some of you do not appreciate them does not mean that others do not appreciate them for exactly what they do now.

I like ascending the stairs and walking around above the square. There are very few public spaces in this city from which you can get an overview of things and events, and as this is a huge public square, having a high vantage point can be a big deal. I do like the framing that the walkways give, and if they do hide some of the view at the same time, big fracking deal: walk into the square and get the whole view of City Hall and become part of the scene at the same time. The amount of view of Old City Hall that they block is negligible at best. This is a special square, and for me, separating it out with these walkways does not detract from that but reinforces that status.

[video=youtube;bJhrHAsgI4M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJhrHAsgI4M[/video]

42

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

Yuck. Definitely benefits from the walkways.

Well, you can't really decide that based on that mangled photo, but attempt appreciated.

Reading that 'the only defence of the walkways is that they are already there' and 'there's no use for them' is tiresome rubbish. Just because some of you do not appreciate them does not mean that others do not appreciate them for exactly what they do now.

I like ascending the stairs and walking around above the square. There are very few public spaces in this city from which you can get an overview of things and events, and as this is a huge public square, having a high vantage point can be a big deal. I do like the framing that the walkways give, and if they do hide some of the view at the same time, big fracking deal: walk into the square and get the whole view of City Hall and become part of the scene at the same time. The amount of view of Old City Hall that they block is negligible at best. This is a special square, and for me, separating it out with these walkways does not detract from that but reinforces that status.

Great idea trying to imagine the Square without the walkways. I've never been more "pro-walkways" than now after seeing that altered photo and further visualizing it in my head, the walkways truly frame and establish the Square beautifully. Interchange's comments about providing raised views are essential, always have been, and he's correct in that the blocked or "altered" views from most points within the Square are negligible, and a soft argument.

 

[adHominem]

Agreed on keeping the walkways. I suspect there'd be less of an argument against their inclusion if the space underneath them was made more inviting - better lighting, better finishes, better furniture; someplace people will want to go for light, shade, shelter or rest. If people were drawn to them they'd be a gateway, not a barrier. As it stands, their current state is my main disappointment in this whole revitalization.