For everyone's reference, this is what the winning design looked like prior to these most recent revisions:
urbantoronto-3499-10346.jpg

http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2010/05/st-lawrence-market-north-finalists-announced



You can see the other finalists here: http://urbantoronto.ca/news/2010/05/st-lawrence-market-north-finalists-announced
 
I want to like it, but I'm not really feeling it. It would probably look good on the waterfront, but at Jarvis and Front it seems really out of context.
 
From the June 17 Government Management Committee Meeting:

http://app.toronto.ca/tmmis/viewAgendaItemHistory.do?item=2013.GM23.6

Images: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-59159.pdf

Gist - need more funding, net cost at 30yrs = 12M. Working renderings are awful being what they are IMO, not reflective of the design itself.

From the report:

The Winning Design included the following design features which have been eliminated or reduced in the current design:

1. Building Height Reduction - height of building has been reduced from 6 floors (including mezzanine) to 5 floors. Space programming efficiencies have been realized by relocating non essential file storage space from the office floors to residual areas of the parking garage. The revised design also eliminates the 4th Floor mechanical area by changing the design from a centralized mechanical system to a decentralized system distributed across all floors.

2. Green Roof Reduction – the Winning Design included a separate green roof suspended over the main building roof, excluding the atrium. The revised design includes a green roof as part the building roof.

3. Sustainability Target Reductions – the Winning design stipulated designing to LEED Gold, with the 'goal' of LEED Platinum. The revised design proposes designing to the Toronto Green Standard of Tier 1 (which contributes towards LEED Silver certification).

4. Sun Shade System Reduction - the Winning Design included operable exterior wood louvers, including maintenance catwalks, on the east and west sides of the building. The current design includes a fixed louver system of composite material
with an aluminum core and the elimination of the maintenance catwalks.

The Architect has informed the City that there are no further design reduction options available other than further reductions to program space, which is unacceptable to the City. As a result, in order for the project to proceed, additional funding is required. The final project cost estimate, based on 100% design, will not be known until the Architect completes the Design Development and Bid Document stages.
Click to expand...

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2013/gm/bgrd/backgroundfile-59156.pdf (p. 7)

Good for them for drawing the line on the design. I think this is pretty much a do or die at this point. Any guesses how it will go?

AoD
 
Last edited:
Wow, when it gets to the point where the architect has to draw a line in the sand with respect to cheapening the project, you just know that whatever we're going to get will be a shell of the original proposal.

My guess is that the scheme is inevitably thrown out all together when additional funds can't be found, and the city goes with a cheaper, local architect willing to slap something together cheaply that is functional but lacking any real interest.
 
Ramako:

I think they should actually look at both the North and South Market as one project and arrange the funding accordingly. The TPA definitely isn't helping matters in the current arrangement.

AoD
 
You know what: the revised design would actually look better with a simple flat roof. That "barn shed" look isn't working for me.

OTOH, perhaps 15s of TCHC housing should go on top with a redesign by a quaAlity local firm--including a ton of crisp red brick.

It's bizarre that a century ago or more local firms could design quality buildings--like the main SLM--yet today we import crappy designs?
 
Last edited:
There is no money for TCHC housing if the site doesn't have land to sell to the private sector for redevelopment.

re: Roof - actually I would have preferred a simple slanted roof, but I understand where they are coming from with the barn.

AoD
 
Don't have an issue with Market Wharf, given its' location but this is way too sensitive a site for anything of that height. There is a time and a place for everything, this ain't it.

AoD
 
Last edited:
read the blog post - was shocked!
Win City Projects 101 (and later revise it to actually meet realistic budgets)
1) submit an amazing urban design
2) say you can do it under budget
3) win the contract
4) unanticipate the anticipatable (if that's a word)
5) forget about inflation

How do we let companies get away with this?
The original design was great - a real eye catcher... it's sad to have to redesign it to look like what it is now - an eyesore
 
AndreaPalladio said:
Well, this is Pam McConnell's baby. And an excellent example of her ineptitude.
Click to expand...

She is actually a very effective Ward Councillor with good relations with the various neighbourhood associations and BIAs in her Ward. She cannot be blamed for the delays with the North Market any more than she can be credited with the success of the Regent Park redevelopment. She has been involved with both and, as far as I can see, has helped both proceed. She was also the prime mover in the City exchanging the First Parliament site and worked to get the City to redo Market Street at a very reasonable cost at same time as the developer was working in the area.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top