I feel like all of the proposals really missed the boat in capturing the whimisical retro amusement park feeling of the islands and the ferries. It's funny how terrible and incongruous the century old ferries look in the renderings, when they'll be at least 1-2 docked there all the time. The only proposal that sort of picks up on the island's weirdness is the Rosenberg proposal, and it just goes really far off the deep end. So I guess my main complaint is these proposals don't really communicate the experience of the islands to the traveller and ignore the best part of the trip (being transport back a century to another world).

I think both the diller and kpmb proposal really miss the point. People don't go to the ferry terminal to sit around in a park. They're there to go to a park somewhere else. I feel like all those public park spaces are going to be completely wasted. The diller proposal also lacks context, and will continue the trend of "cool looking out of place architecture that doesn't really work very well" that seems to be popular for some projects in toronto *cough* rom *cough*.

As conservative as it is, the clement park proposal is probably the most functional and would result in the most pleasant experience for travellers.
 
Starter front page story up here now, with dataBase file coming this evening!

42
 
mjl08 said:
I wonder if there will be some NIMBYism from the old timers at the Harbour Plaza condos? Harbour Square Park, as poorly maintained as it is, is the stomping ground for the Harbour Plaza retirees who walk their toy dogs across the brown lawns and sit on the benches gazing at boats in the harbour. Will they actively oppose the "cloud mist gardens," "ice walls" and "street creatures?"
Click to expand...

Of course there will be people who will oppose changes even if those changes are for better. Yes, the ferry terminal and the park need to be reconstructed, but some of the aspects are not taken into consideration. The most affected is 33 HS and 65 HS, in some of the projects we can not even enter our building from Bay street. You are wrong about the residents walking their dogs though, in all the Harbour square buildings no pets are allowed. The residents with dogs you see are from other buildings in the area.
 
Last edited:
1. Clement Blanchet Architecture (Paris) + Batlle i Roig (Barcelona) + RVTR (Toronto and Ann Arbor) + Scott Torrance Landscape Architect Inc. (Toronto)
2. Stoss Landscape Urbanism (Boston) + nARCHITECTS (New York City) + ZAS Architects (Toronto) - The terminal building itself is underwhelming and may be inadequate but I like the rest of the program.

I'm disappointed with the proposals by Diller Scofidio+Renfro (New York City) + architectsAlliance (Toronto) + Hood Design (Emeryville, CA) and KPMB Architects (Toronto), West 8 (Rotterdam), Greenberg Consultants (Toronto).

The proposal by Quadrangle Architects (Toronto), aLLDesign (London), Janet Rosenberg & Studio (Toronto) is just plain ugly.
 
I rather like the Civic Canopy concept, and the Harbour Landing second.

Unfortunately, these also look like the most expensive ones. We'll probably get something closer to the Cloud Park, without all the silly cloud misters, and ugly Quadrangle concept.
 
I like the KPMB et.al. design the best as well. It speaks to the wave design further down Queen's Quay, provides actual shelter during summer thunderstorms and due to the design actually increases the amount of park space. While one of the above posters is right, the people going to the ferry terminal are there to go to the island, you wouldn't believe how many times I've missed the ferry by a few minutes and them spend a nice 20+ minutes in the park. The park is important for travelers and it is important to the many thousands of people that live on Queen's Quay.

The Quadrangle concept should make that company's principals ashamed when viewed against the other proposals.
 
I think I like the aA proposal the best, at least the building. I really like the idea of a geyser clock as well. Makes the journey to the islands an even bigger deal that people from all around the waterfront can witness.
 
nrb said:
I think both the diller and kpmb proposal really miss the point. People don't go to the ferry terminal to sit around in a park. They're there to go to a park somewhere else. I feel like all those public park spaces are going to be completely wasted.
Click to expand...

Not really, if you go in the summer that area is quite busy with people just hanging out or waiting to meet with friends. If it had a proper connection along the waterfront over the slips it would probably be even busier.
 
Having had a closer look at the proposals, I have to say I am leaning towards Stoss more (at least with respect to the park design aspect). I think they do need to rethink and expand on the terminal design however.

AoD
 
stjames2queenwest said:
[SUB][/SUB]I like the cloud garden concept, but I'd switch the pavilion for the kpmb design.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. The cloud garden proposal is my favorite. Love everything about it except for the actual Terminal itself which looks pretty plain.
 
Sign me up for KPMB! Although the aA design is quite beautiful, and certainly evokes Metropol Parasol as pointed out earlier.

The Stoss submission lacks connectivity. Failing to bridge the slip directly south of Harbour Square and/or the Yonge St Slip is a huge missed opportunity. An uninterrupted waterfront is a waterfront that draws people in.

I used to work as a tour guide on the harbour; almost every day I dealt with tourists frustrated that they would quickly end up back at Queen's Quay every time they tried to walk along the water's edge. In fact, I'd wager most Torontonians aren't even aware of the narrow path currently south of Harbour Square that leads from the foot of York St. to the ferries. It's amazing how being forced back to the street makes you feel like the experience of being on the water is over, even if you know/are told there are more pathways farther along. A new boardwalk bridging this slip could alleviate these issues in a huge way. And just imagine how a Yonge St. slip could help connect our old waterfront with all the exciting new developments to the east!

I love the idea of an accessible green roof and/or some kind of vista over the harbour, but I'm surprised at the inclusion of elevated walkways by both Clement Blanchet et al. and Quadrangle et al. This design is rarely inviting and almost always under-utilized. Look at how the often-vacant walkway at city hall disconnects NPS from the city. And while obviously not for pedestrian use, look just metres to the north at how the Gardiner disconnects our waterfront from the city. Must we make this mistake again?
 
I am surprised--honest--that the architectsAlliance proposal is in a league of its own. It is the winner!

It is iconic and timeless. And fits in with the existing wavedecks while shading the ferry goers from the brutal reality of Harbour Square etc.

I would love to see a combination of concrete and wood.
 
Is it legally possible to expropriate the tunnel and the passarele connecting 33 HS to the hotel?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top