[prisecaru0]

The Harbour eye has my vote - to me it's the only bridge that is a place where you can hang out. It's a destination. All the other options are throughfares.

Interesting view. I see the equinox bridge just as destination as it has similar seating features. To me the equinox bridge will attract more destination visitors because of its striking design. My only concern is the lack of contribution to nature and plantlife, but that's easily added after the bridge construction.

 

[drum118]

1. Equinox' has my vote, but the cost will kill it.
2. Maamawi' Bridge offer everything to everyone at a lower cost than Equinox'
3. The Harbour eye reminds me of the bridge in Venice and not fun climbing steps as well not looking it will meet accessibility needs
The rest miss the target for me.

 

[DKsan]

Equinox and Salmon Run are really boring to me in this area. We're connecting city to nature, and they're both really clinical looking.

I really enjoy Nda-Nwendaaganag to be honest. I love the nature, the steel element and the designs on the side of the building. I think it reflects indigenous identity and the post-industrial nature of the area well.

 

[70Challenger]

currently in Copenhagen, specifically around christianshavn area where there are a lot of pedestrian and cycle bridges over the canal that are very modern but less 'obtrusive' on top. I must say I hate the fanning-like support beams that go over bridges as depicted in some of the finalists. I want it to be more contemporary and simple, where one is able to see the skyline and canal from certain vantage points. I think the Nda-Nwendaaganag or Maamawi' are my fave.

Yeah, between the Humber Bay bridge, Garrison crossing bridge and the new Cherry Street bridges, the steel arch with support beams/cables look is getting a bit played out in Toronto.

 

[grammin]

They're all pretty cool bridges. I like the Eye. It seems so unobtrusive while providing some nice features and I like the finishes. To me a bridge should be there but not there so to speak. This one looks sleek but still is interesting. NDA is nice but looks a little narrow.

 

[drum118]

Hello,
Thank you for attending the Public Meeting about the Villiers Island Density Study, held by Waterfront Toronto, the City of Toronto, and CreateTO.

A summary document with all of the questions we weren’t able to get to in the meeting is now available: https://portlandsto.ca/wp-content/uploads/VIPP-PIC-Summary-AODA-with-fonts-pac.pdf

You can also watch a recording of the meeting on YouTube here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9TOQX9MOKc

What comes next?

The team has incorporated the feedback gathered from stakeholder interviews, the public meeting and survey and will submit a report to the City of Toronto’s Planning and Housing Committee this fall with an update on work the team has done to refine the proposed approach to increasing density to support the maximum amount of housing achievable on Villiers Island. A public open house to share these updates is being planned for later winter 2023. The team is also undertaking various technical studies including a Community Services Review and is planning to bring official plan amendments and zoning by-law amendments to City Council later next year.

If you have any other questions, please send them to info@waterfrontoronto.ca

 

[HousingNowTO]

This chart was interesting along with all of the participant demographics...

https://x.com/HousingNowTO/status/1709692247015391323

 

[smably]

I've been out of the city so I'm coming to these bridge designs late, but here are my early thoughts on each of them:

Maamawi' Bridge (Entuitive)
+ Focus on inclusivity and accessibility
+ Low-carbon mass timber construction with a simple/efficient design
+ Floating boardwalk and wetland under the bridge is a nice move
- Feels a bit utilitarian and spare, not really an icon of Toronto
- Architectural expression is only really visible from below

Nda-Nwendaaganag (EXP)
+ Beautiful design, especially the cor-ten cladding
+ Love that they're bringing greenery up onto the bridge
+ Lots of places to sit and linger
- Please, no more steps as a design feature (it's 2023, design for accessibility first)
- Is there really enough soil volume for those trees to thrive?
- Lots of concrete will be needed to hold up all that soil = big carbon footprint?

The Salmon Run (Henning Larsen)
+ Honestly love the design with the curves and the tubular arch truss
+ Modal separation, yes please!
- Centre benches don't feel particularly inviting
- Kind of cold, not much publicly accessible greenery?

The Harbour Eye (RJC)
+ Focus on fish habitat is an interesting move
+ I like the idea of activating the bridge at night with underwater lighting
- Enough with the steps
- Underwater lighting sounds $$$ and will undoubtedly be cut from maintenance budgets
- Design doesn't inspire me

Equinox Bridge (Zeidler)
+ Truly iconic design, love the intertwining curves of the arch and the deck
+ I like the "nose decks", spaces to linger while out of the main flow of the bridge (assuming they're actually accessible)
- Not much greenery, really all about the bridge structure
- More steps on the north side of the channel, no accessible way to get down below the bridge?
- Looks extremely expensive and I'm not convinced that the design would survive value engineering

Still need to think through how I'd rank them.

 

[Northern Light]

I've been out of the city so I'm coming to these bridge designs late, but here are my early thoughts on each of them:

So the loss of your 'cool' factor is what explains this heatwave.

***

Great comments across the board.

Nda-Nwendaaganag (EXP)
+ Love that they're bringing greenery up onto the bridge

Me too

- Please, no more steps as a design feature (it's 2023, design for accessibility first)

Provided there are also ramps, I like steps as a feature. The knock on ramps are that at reasonable grades they add significant distance/time penalty. Stairs, for someone able to use them allow a direct, shorter path. We absolutely need to highlight accessibility where possible, but if we can integrate optional steps, I'm all for it.

- Is there really enough soil volume for those trees to thrive? - Lots of concrete will be needed to hold up all that soil = big carbon footprint?

I don't believe a soil volume sheet was included in the presentation, but it is technically feasible, it does add some material weight to be supported, as well as the weight of the trees at maturity than the soil.

30m3 of soil is ~ 36 tonnes; so if you have a 3-tree planter, that's ~90 tonnes; you have to account for weight when the soil is saturated too, which could be up to 70% higher.

For a mature tree that's done well, I would allocate 2.5T per tree for Birch (that likely has a decent safety margin on it); a super large canopy tree at full height could easily double that.

 

[nstuch]

The Equinox also seems to have a bit of shared DNA with a number of other bridges in the WilkinsonEyre family (eg. The Peace Bridge).

wilkinsoneyre.com

I like it the best but it does look like they pulled it out of a catalogue of 100s of bridges they have already designed, for when competitions require a response lol

 

[hawc]

What's bridge is most Graffiti-Proof?

 

[smably]

Provided there are also ramps, I like steps as a feature. The knock on ramps are that at reasonable grades they add significant distance/time penalty. Stairs, for someone able to use them allow a direct, shorter path. We absolutely need to highlight accessibility where possible, but if we can integrate optional steps, I'm all for it.

I am OK with steps when necessary, but the other designs here show that it's possible to make a bridge with fewer compromises for people with accessibility needs, and I prefer those designs. In the words of @AlexBozikovic, "for a [structure] to be truly accessible, it should not set up any unnecessary barriers; people with disabilities should have the same experience of a [structure] as anyone else".

 

[Northern Light]

I am OK with steps when necessary, but the other designs here show that it's possible to make a bridge with fewer compromises for people with accessibility needs, and I prefer those designs. In the words of @AlexBozikovic, "for a [structure] to be truly accessible, it should not set up any unnecessary barriers; people with disabilities should have the same experience of a [structure] as anyone else".

I'm not sure what the 'compromise' is here? There is a ramp; I'm not being argumentative, I actually don't understand the argument and would appreciate elaboration.

***

I would note that 2 of the other designs contain design features that are not accessible so far as I can discern (tiered seating)

While another bridge features a ramp that points in a singular, angled, direction, which results in extended travel time for everyone coming from or going to the opposite direction.

 

[smably]

I'm not sure what the 'compromise' is here? There is a ramp; I'm not being argumentative, I actually don't understand the argument and would appreciate elaboration.

The compromise is having two different experiences of the bridge for people with different physical abilities. The steps are called a "street stair" and shown in the renderings as not just a different way to cross the bridge, but a place to sit as well:

It's a major architectural feature of the bridge, and it's accessible only to people who can climb steps. Alex's piece I linked above explains very eloquently why that's a bad idea.

An analogy is the Vessel, which is technically accessible because it has elevators, but which offers a very different experience to visitors who use wheelchairs. The bridge is a different situation, of course, but the issues are similar. I wouldn't consider the stairs to be a disqualifying feature on their own, but to me they're a negative when it's clearly possible to design a step-free bridge that can be enjoyed more equitably.

 

[Northern Light]

The compromise is having two different experiences of the bridge for people with different physical abilities. The steps are called a "street stair" and shown in the renderings as not just a different way to cross the bridge, but a place to sit as well:

View attachment 511340

It's a major architectural feature of the bridge, and it's accessible only to people who can climb steps. Alex's piece I linked above explains very eloquently why that's a bad idea.

An analogy is the Vessel, which is technically accessible because it has elevators, but which offers a very different experience to visitors who use wheelchairs. The bridge is a different situation, of course, but the issues are similar. I wouldn't consider the stairs to be a disqualifying feature on their own, but to me they're a negative when it's clearly possible to design a step-free bridge that can be enjoyed more equitably.

So how do you feel about the tiered seating designs on the other bridges, which are also inaccessible as best I can discern?