Sooo...that Robarts Library Renovations thing is a deviation from this philosophy? >.<

PE and I will differ on the extent to which libraries need be window-less tombs around their stacks...........

But..... as it relates to Robarts, the expansion is entirely study/work space not collections space.
 
PE and I will differ on the extent to which libraries need be window-less tombs around their stacks...........

But..... as it relates to Robarts, the expansion is entirely study/work space not collections space.
Fair enough!
 
BlogTo has a piece up on this, here: https://www.blogto.com/city/2021/12/toronto-public-library-dawes-branch/

From said piece additional renders:

1639767254725.png


1639767273502.png


1639767311304.png
 
It's a very creative and expressive design. I noticed this pattern in the city that a lot of money is spent on architectural design and renderings for projects that are likely to be controversial and therefore be less likely to be built.

I don't know if it's a coincidence or a strategy for building public support. In this case, there's the whole controversy of eliminating the affordable condo units, which might result in a more conventional building built with affordable housing. An architectural downgrade would be unfortunate, but not replacing the units strikes me as regressive.
 
It's a very creative and expressive design. I noticed this pattern in the city that a lot of money is spent on architectural design and renderings for projects that are likely to be controversial and therefore be less likely to be built.

I don't know if it's a coincidence or a strategy for building public support. In this case, there's the whole controversy of eliminating the affordable condo units, which might result in a more conventional building built with affordable housing. An architectural downgrade would be unfortunate, but not replacing the units strikes me as regressive.

On the housing; the previous units were condo (ownership) and only a handful; I think that's important to consider.

I believe the decision to omit any housing has a couple of facets to it. (I'm speculating here)

One is that they knew they wanted a larger library/community facility (more height) and I believe they didn't want to go significantly taller than the current building, because under their own planning guidelines that would require lots of setbacks etc. given that the rear of the site borders a series of single family homes; shadowing on the school yard just beyond that may also have been a consideration. The City is always concerned about setting precedents.

I also think one needs to understand how TPL felt about the previous structure, and the condominium arrangement. The building has been severely challenged for a long time from a repair/SOGR point of view; and I gather TPL found dealing with the condo board .......challenging.

I think TPL could deal with being a tenant (as it is in many spaces) but was not keen to share ownership with another party.

They could have included housing, but I suspect that to be worthwhile they would have needed to buy additional homes, have a longer timeline, and probably change the ownership structure of the site.

I don't see the City building 6 unit projects.
 
I don't see the City building 6 unit projects.
For the record, we didn't want the city to build a "6 unit project" --- but yes, we did want them to blow-up many of their own planning guidelines. ;)
 
Planning should be adapting to modern needs, which include density and a mix of uses in this metropolitan city with a housing crisis.
 
This library was also on the agenda listing of the Jan 27, 2022 DRP meeting last week:





Toronto library redevelopment to accentuate Indigenous culture


February 2, 2022

Perkins&Will and Smoke Architecture will soon reveal the redesign for the Dawes Road Library and Community Hub. The firms will be hosting a webinar with the Toronto Public Library on Wednesday, February 2.

The redeveloped library is slated to become a hallmark building celebrating Indigenous values of living on the land, sharing gifts of knowledge, and supporting creativity, while also providing a range of community programming.

The three-storey building’s façade is inspired by the cultural star blanket, wrapping around the building as a symbol of respect and admiration for everyone in the community. A new roundhouse will form the heart of the building, visible from the streetscape, which will host ceremonies for Indigenous communities and become a central space for knowledge sharing.

The building will also feature a makerspace, a community kitchen, an outdoor courtyard with Wi-Fi and shelter space, and a rooftop garden.

The design reveal webinar will begin at 2 p.m. Speakers will include Andrew Frontini, design principal and design director of Perkins&Will; Eladia Smoke, principal architect and owner of Smoke Architecture; and Susan Martin, manager of capital planning and implementation for the Toronto Public Library.
 
 

Some very good comments by panel members here.

While the overall thrust was positive the concerns they raised mirror my own.

From the minutes:

1645816130976.png


***

1645816182703.png



***

1645816212688.png


***

1645816338604.png


Lastly, I noted 2 other comments worthy of mention

1) That it would be nice if the interior architecture could still be seen somewhat more from the outside, particularly at night. Whether by opening up the 'Blanket' in spots or by use of translucent materials.

2) There was concern expressed that the building is too close to the north lot line (directly beside an apartment for low-income residents) and that this would create very dark conditions for said residents.
 
Can someone please explain to me the concept of "embodied carbon" and how it's "released" when demolishing a pre-existing building?
 
Can someone please explain to me the concept of "embodied carbon" and how it's "released" when demolishing a pre-existing building?

Easiest example would be cement in an old building that is being demolished - and rebuilt with non-recycled materials.

The original building has all of the "embodied carbon" from all of that cement that was originally created 50 years ago.

If that is all demolished, then all of the net new CO2 impacts of the new building materials - are added to the original CO2 impacts - if you reuse/reincorporate rather the demolish, you should lower the full-lifecycle impact of the building (*actual mileage may vary).

Some architects go as far as embracing a "never demolish" standard - https://www.fastcompany.com/9061570...ho-never-demolish-just-won-the-pritzker-prize


understandingcarbon-1.jpg
 
UT article with a couple interior rendering views:



daw.JPG
daw2.JPG
 

Back
Top