Status
Not open for further replies.
.dwg said:
The exterior of these buildings will never be timber. So unless they are planning to use hideous aluminum panels with a tacky screen printed woodgrain pattern, they should drop the disingenuous renderings while they’re still ahead.
Click to expand...
It's Google's first foray into city-building and a prototype for what they plan to do around the world. Pretty sure they'll want the architecture to be top-notch.
 
Irishmonk said:
It's Google's first foray into city-building and a prototype for what they plan to do around the world. Pretty sure they'll want the architecture to be top-notch.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is. For code reasons and the consideration of maintenance, I am making an educated guess that the exteriors will not consist of wood elements; certainly not as the primary cladding material.
 
.dwg said:
I'm not sure what your point is. For code reasons and the consideration of maintenance, I am making an educated guess that the exteriors will not consist of wood elements; certainly not as the primary cladding material.
Click to expand...
I'm curious as to why the cladding won't or can't be wood; there are other wood structures planned for Toronto, including one just a stone's throw from this proposal. Additionally, I don't think Google is going to do the usual Toronto style bait and switch when it comes to the renderings, since this is potentially one of the highest profile developments in the world..
 
Irishmonk said:
I'm curious as to why the cladding won't or can't be wood; there are other wood structures planned for Toronto, including one just a stone's throw from this proposal. Additionally, I don't think Google is going to do the usual Toronto style bait and switch when it comes to the renderings, since this is potentially one of the highest profile developments in the world..
Click to expand...

A timber structure is very different from wood cladding.

A tall timber structure, while not yet permissible by the OBC, is reasonable and is permitted in other jurisdictions because you can size the structural members to maintain their structural integrity even during a fire (up to X number of hours) and because you can sprinkler them. I'm not speaking about light-wood framing here but large sized timber structural members.

Wood cladding is problematic because of its ability to burn and smoke, spread fire, an inability to cost-effectively prevent this, and because maintenance on wood cladding that is exposed to the elements is expensive and has to be very regular.

Timber arguably makes for a suitable large-building structure, but on large buildings wood does not make for a hearty, long-lasting or safe cladding. It's not permitted in code, and this will not (and should not) change.

The buildings you are thinking of, such as the George Brown College "Arbour" building will not be clad in wood. That is either a trick of the rendering (artistic license) or a material being misread as something it isn't (i.e. aluminum screenprinted to look like wood). The projects you are thinking of are buildings with timber structures, with glazing or wall assemblies with aluminum panel or other types of cladding covering the structure.

It's worth noting that many timber buildings are easy to mistake for being a typical steel or concrete structure because code requires the timber structural elements to be covered with drywall or other fire-resistant materials (in the case that the timber structural elements are not sized to burn for more than the required number of hours spec'd in building code). People imagine that timber structures have a certain 'look' to them and appear as wood buildings but it's possible that even on the interior, you wouldn't be able to detect the presence of timber. The exterior is similar - it could be covered entirely with brick, precast concrete, curtainwall, etc. The main takeaway here is that a building's structural material is usually a very separate matter from the way it is clad, both in terms of exterior cladding and interior finishes. At the end of the day, this is about life safety (fire), and the building's performance with regards to enclosure from weather, etc.

I hope this is clear / clarifies my post.
 
Last edited:
Press Release from the BoT:

Few Torontonians Oppose Sidewalk Labs/Quayside & Smart Cities Environics Research poll shows public supports government control of “Smart Cities” data​

TORONTO, ON, February 26, 2019—Despite months of negative headlines about an apparent wave of public opposition against Toronto’s Sidewalk Labs-Waterfront Toronto partnership, a new Environics Research survey commissioned by the Toronto Region Board of Trade suggests a ‘Techlash’ may not be a thing, at least in Toronto.

The survey revealed nearly two-thirds believe Toronto’s tech sector growth is a good trend, with only 3% believing it to be negative. The Environics survey also showed few held strong opinions in support or opposition to the Sidewalk Labs project. 55% supported the Quayside project, while just 11% opposed it in reply to a direct question on the issue. Meanwhile, a strong majority (76%) believe the partnership between Waterfront Toronto and Sidewalk Labs should proceed if the public interest can be safeguarded as the process unfolds.

“The Board of Trade is glad that Sidewalk Labs is here, and glad the company has a shot at bringing innovative development ideas to Quayside alongside our growing smart cities sector in Toronto,” said Jan De Silva, President & CEO, Toronto Region Board of Trade. “But our support isn't unconditional. There's a process for Sidewalk Labs to confirm approval for their ideas with Waterfront Toronto and no less than three different levels of government. Public policy issues like data governance must be resolved as that process unfolds."



Taking a cue from privacy critics, the Board issued its BiblioTech report in early January, calling on policymakers to clearly assign oversight of any data hub and development of public realm data policy to a public agency. In line with that thinking, the Environics survey found a strong majority (71%) believe the public sector should have custody over smart city (public realm) data.



“Governments are proving that where there are new issues arising from the new technology sector, they can and will respond,” said De Silva in response to the Ontario government’s launch of a data strategy consultation this month, and Toronto City Councillor Joe Cressy’s motion today to start a similar initiative at City Hall.



The survey was completed between February 6 and 11, just prior to the release of a leaked slide deck of Sidewalk Labs plans and subsequent media coverage. “Even if opposition somehow doubled in the short time since the poll was completed, that still leaves only a fraction of Torontonians who are strongly opposed to this project,” said the Board’s Vice President of Public Affairs, Brian Kelcey. “While the survey was clear there is public support to resolve specific policy issues, these numbers do not suggest Torontonians are in any rush to just tear up the Quayside deal and start again.”



The Environics Research survey is available in full at http://bit.ly/EnvironicsSC.
 
interchange42 said:
Press Release from the BoT:

Few Torontonians Oppose Sidewalk Labs/Quayside & Smart Cities Environics Research poll shows public supports government control of “Smart Cities” data​

TORONTO, ON, February 26, 2019—Despite months of negative headlines about an apparent wave of public opposition against Toronto’s Sidewalk Labs-Waterfront Toronto partnership, a new Environics Research survey commissioned by the Toronto Region Board of Trade suggests a ‘Techlash’ may not be a thing, at least in Toronto.
Click to expand...

What?! The Star and other media have amplified the voice of a small vocal minority and portrayed it as a widely held opinion?! Never

Engineered controversy for clicks has ruined journalism.
 
torontologist said:
What?! The Star and other media have amplified the voice of a small vocal minority and portrayed it as a widely held opinion?! Never

Engineered controversy for clicks has ruined journalism.
Click to expand...
The issue of course, is whether the public fully understands what this deal with Sidewalk Labs entails, and its implications.

Majority opinion (or apathy, rather) does not equate with correct action.

I doubt many Torontonians, even post-graduates, could explain what a TIF district is, what it entails, and how they are used, let alone analyze if we are getting the raw end of the deal here with Sidewalk.
 
.dwg said:
I'm not sure what your point is. For code reasons and the consideration of maintenance, I am making an educated guess that the exteriors will not consist of wood elements; certainly not as the primary cladding material.
Click to expand...
What I find puzzling is that Austria and Switzerland, Sweden and Finland are already kilometres ahead on this. Sidewalk claims to be reinventing the wheel when what they're showing are techniques generations...centuries old in nations with a higher standard of living and construction than Canada has. (As per national building codes, variances occur in provinces and regions)

174958

the build show in switzerland - Google Search

www.google.ca

All of this is detailed in print also, but nothing like watching an American development builder see it first-hand and marvel at the technology and techniques. I linked some of these to an Austrian arch prof friend, and he laughed. It's all second nature to anyone in that part of the world.

As you point out, a lot of this won't meet North Am codes, not for any reason of quality, but due to being sticks in the mud. Even plumbing is lagging in North Am, let alone electrical systems et al. (I'm an electronic tech, marvelled at what France was using twenty years ago when there last. All of Europe is at least a gen ahead, in control circuits, more apt fusing for lighting circuits, low voltage control, etc, etc)

What a huge amount of the problem is with Sidewalk is their approach, and the approach demanded by our rigid institutions. Sidewalk expects valet service. It ain't gonna happen. They should approach this as what they really are: A Developer, and use the channels existing. And perhaps the federal ones, CMHC, InfraBank et al.
 
Last edited:
WislaHD said:
The issue of course, is whether the public fully understands what this deal with Sidewalk Labs entails, and its implications.

Majority opinion (or apathy, rather) does not equate with correct action.

I doubt many Torontonians, even post-graduates, could explain what a TIF district is, what it entails, and how they are used, let alone analyze if we are getting the raw end of the deal here with Sidewalk.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that the TIF slide was taken from a leaked internal document that was exploring potential options for financing the project and associated infrastructure improvements. It was never intended for release or serious proposal. Not only that, but none of the 3 levels of government stakeholders in Waterfront Toronto would ever go for it, in a million years (even the PCs, in my opinion). My hope is that someone at Google who had little knowledge of the political lay of the land made that slide without thinking of the consequences. That lack of knowledge seems to have marked this project from day one, it seems.
 
^The stories aren't adding up, no matter what your proclivity and bias.
torontologist said:
That lack of knowledge seems to have marked this project from day one, it seems.
Click to expand...
Except that is radically suspect too. There are approx 100 lobbyists employed by Sidewalk on this, and not one of them is adept in governance matters?

I don't accept it, not even for a moment. But I also don't accept the arguments from the City, QP or Federal side either.

Sidewalk has become a massive financial behemoth, and there's no-one on their team, after this situation arising in many other jurisdictions, that understands how to 'line up along with Batman and all the other normal people' to wait their turn in line?

I see a lot of excuses...I see very little competence...other than some playing stupid and thinking it will work.
 
I agree completely with SIT when he writes, “I see a lot of excuses...I see very little competence...other than some playing stupid and thinking it will work.”

Except that I would apply that description to every major transit infrastructure decision the City has funded over the past 45 years. Every single major project the City built in that time was wrong mode, wrong location, or both. The province has often been complicit. Think I’m being hyperbolic? Consider this:

First Spadina extension (should have run under Bathurst)
Scarborough RT
Sheppard subway stub
Starting an Eglinton subway tunnel then cancelling it and filling it in
Second Spadina extension
Tunnelling so much of the Eglinton RT that we’ve ended up with most of the cost of a subway with around half the capacity
SSE
SmartTrack (viewer advisory - not a real thing)

Throw in a bill or so on the completely unjustified Gardiner East rebuild to round out the case that every single thing the City touches on transportation infrastructure is wrong.

So, why do we trust the bozos in the flaming clown car that passes for Council more than a private developer? I understand the Alphabet proposal Isn’t How We Do Things In Toronto, Sir! But how we do things in Toronto is uniformly stupid. I also understand that the general idea of combining real estate development with transit works brilliantly for the MTR. So why wouldn’t we let Alphabet take a shot, with their own money and risk? How could what they build possibly be worse than the alternative of letting Tory and his band of incompetents loose? Did Alphabet fail to pay off the right people?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top