bgobgo said:
Reminder of the rendering of this bridge. Definite improvement!!

View attachment 100608
Click to expand...

This version looks slightly different than the one first released so I'm crossing my fingers that this is indeed what will be built this Summer. It'll dramatically improve the atmosphere around the south entrance. Good design breeds good design.

I hope that that leads to other improvements for the facade. The Oakley store was a horrible mistake. It turns its back on Queen Street making the south entrance which features the iconic Eaton Centre Canada geese feel like a back alley entrance. The store fronts on each side are perfect for cafes or restaurants with patios on Queen.
 
Last edited:
MetroMan said:
This version looks slightly different than the one first released so I'm crossing my fingers that this is indeed what will be built this Summer. It'll dramatically improve the atmosphere around the south entrance. Good design breeds good design.

I hope that that leads to other improvements for the facade. The Oakley store was a horrible mistake. It turns its back on Queen Street making the south entrance which features the iconic Eaton Centre Canada geese feel like a back alley entrance. The store fronts on each side are perfect for cafes or restaurants with patios on Queen.
Click to expand...
This monstrosity of a bridge just makes it look ridiculous we should just get rid of the bridge completely and put the glass back into the bay where it belongs. Plus they should get rid of that store that took up half of it with it's gaudy architecture that looks like it belongs in Elton John's house.
 
I'd remove it too, assuming the sidewalk and intersection can handle peak volumes of people crossing from the mall to the Bay. It obscures views on Queen Street to Old City Hall, which is a defining landmark of our city. The idea flies in the face of convenience and practicality, but going outside the mall for a brief time isn't that big of a deal. The Bay and Eaton Centre will attract people regardless of whether there's a bridge or not.
 
Last edited:
junctionist said:
I'd remove it too, assuming the sidewalk and intersection can handle peak volumes of people crossing from the mall to the Bay. It obscures views on Queen Street to Old City Hall, which is a defining landmark of our city. The idea flies in the face of convenience and practicality, but going outside the mall for a brief time isn't that big of a deal. The Bay will attract people regardless of whether there's a bridge or not.
Click to expand...
I don't even know if many people use it in the first place. I think more people tend to cross the street or use the underground entrence.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
I don't even know if many people use it in the first place. I think more people tend to cross the street or use the underground entrence.
Click to expand...

Every time I've used that pedway there are people using it or walking towards it. If Toronto is to see a significant jump in density/pedestrians we'll need multiple levels for moving around. We already have ground level/the sidewalk, PATH underground, and a 3rd level in the air might eventually develop as well.

Hong Kong is built like that. I don't like malls at all but I do see the benefit of having multiple ways of getting around in a super dense city. I wouldn't classify downtown as high density let alone super high density but it's heading that way. Keep the pedway and maybe we could eventually have a 'level 2' pedway from Nordstrom north to the Atrium on Bay. It could be the start of our '3rd' pedestrian realm.
 
isaidso said:
Every time I've used that pedway there are people using it or walking towards it. If Toronto is to see a significant jump in density/pedestrians we'll need multiple levels for moving around. We already have ground level/the sidewalk, PATH underground, and a 3rd level in the air might eventually develop as well.

Hong Kong is built like that. I don't like malls at all but I do see the benefit of having multiple ways of getting around in a super dense city. I wouldn't classify downtown as high density let alone super high density but it's heading that way. Keep the pedway and maybe we could eventually have a 'level 2' pedway from Nordstrom north to the Atrium on Bay. It could be the start of our '3rd' pedestrian realm.
Click to expand...
Hell no don't give them any ideas like that. Crap acteture like this needs to be stopped. Design for the sake of design is ugly. It should blend in better then it does now if they still want to go ahead with the bridge. Personally I haven't been in the bay downtown since they made a mess of it by splitting it with whatever that store from the US is called. I think the bay has just lost touch with everything, there Olympic stuff is overpriced even when it's on sale.
 
EastYorkTTCFan said:
Hell no don't give them any ideas like that. Crap acteture like this needs to be stopped. Design for the sake of design is ugly. It should blend in better then it does now if they still want to go ahead with the bridge. Personally I haven't been in the bay downtown since they made a mess of it by splitting it with whatever that store from the US is called. I think the bay has just lost touch with everything, there Olympic stuff is overpriced even when it's on sale.
Click to expand...

One of the City of Toronto attachments from an earlier post cited a study that observed daily avg pedestrian count of ~6k which is significant. Toronto's downtown sidewalks are surprisingly narrow, and I recall reading some time ago that the narrowness is the legacy of military-minded planning from the city's colonial past. Considering the trajectory of the city's population growth, these overhead bridges between blocks may become more important. It's not uncommon for developments in Tokyo - a rather extreme example of high pop. density - to include multiple levels of sidewalks in order to manage pedestrian traffic ; Shiodome and Shinjuku-station area are immediate examples that come to mind.
 
bgobgo said:
Reminder of the rendering of this bridge. Definite improvement!!

View attachment 100608
Click to expand...
It's flashier than it has to be, and it's certainly unique, and you need things like that to keep Toronto's urbanity somewhat messy and energized. In a city where so much fine grain is currently being lost to the blandification of often featureless glass walls in the ground realm, I'm looking forward to this rather kinetic infrastructure!

42
 
I don't know how this qualifies as "crapitecture" - the use of materials, design all appears top notch - like the one at St. Micheal's Hospital. If they went to the trouble to hire Wilkinson Eyre, which has an exemplary record for bridge projects for the job, they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
If you want bad architecture, look at TTC in house designs instead.

800px-QP_TTC_NE_entrance.jpg

(From Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Park_(TTC)#/media/File:QP_TTC_NE_entrance.jpg)

AoD
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind a minimalist design that aimed to be completely transparent. Old City Hall would be more noticeable in the background. It's a landmark that we take for granted. Views from the east and the west are marred by overhead walkways like this one and the ones at Nathan Phillips Square. The Bay Street vista has now been compromised by the second-rate Residences of College Park towers, which appear to rise awkwardly from the tower when viewed from south of Front Street. Its landscaping is lousy. We treat it like a background building, though it's one of the most unique and architectural buildings in our city.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I don't know how this qualifies as "crapitecture" - the use of materials, design all appears top notch - like the one at St. Micheal's Hospital. If they went to the trouble to hire Wilkinson Eyre, which has an exemplary record for bridge projects for the job, they deserve the benefit of the doubt.
If you want bad architecture, look at TTC in house designs instead.

800px-QP_TTC_NE_entrance.jpg

(From Wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queen's_Park_(TTC)#/media/File:QP_TTC_NE_entrance.jpg)

AoD
Click to expand...

It looks functional to a fault; it's no-frills and has a practical roof that prevents accumulation of snow and ice. Not sure if there is really sufficient lighting at night though (only 3 or 4 overhead fluorescent lights?) Otherwise it's suited for its purpose.

But it fails to fire up the imagination. Considering that it is the station to the province's legislature, it is therefore significant! I think here's an opportunity to transform an otherwise mundane entrance into a statement that fires up citizens' imaginations (isn't Foster's "colourful floating eggs" kitty-corner from it?). What if the best brains in Canadian architecture and art are commissioned to transform this entrance into a conversation piece that promotes Canada's progressive values and instill a healthy amount of civic pride?

So glad they are doing something extraordinary with this bridge btw S5+Bay and EC.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top