SP!RE
°°°°°°
Very descriptive and good use of sources.
Very descriptive and good use of sources.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
An odd misstep from you Palladio.
What would the Ward Councillor have to do with a project that was conceived by the City's Real Estate Division and driven almost entirely by their faulty numbers? She also had nothing to do with the hiring of RSHP as that was decided through an open competition. And at what point should she have had an independent body assess the gap between what was proposed and what one could feasibly construct for $75m at an indeterminable point in the future? And who would have paid for that assessment? And, and...
But yeah. Inept. Whatever...
AndreaPalladio
Senior Member
Because she is the major advocate of this, and has failed to deliver.
CityPainter
Active Member
I agree that it's unfair to lay the problems with this development at the feet of any one person. The efforts to build have been ongoing for a decade and I'm sure dozens or hundreds of people have been involved in this project, for better or worse.
And I'm not usually so defeatist on these types of things, but honestly, rather than spend $90mil building what I see in that "revised" render I think they should just save the money and keep what we have now. Try again in another decade with a different group of people and a different pile of non-existent money. Because that revised render only looks marginally better than what's there now. Aside from the traffic courts above (which many people including myself don't think really belong there) what is going to be gained? We'll still have a lumpen building ringed by a dank overhang supported by pillars, and the inside market area will still be foreboding and low-ceilinged. Just my thoughts. Hard to find an upside with where this once-promising development has ended up.
And I'm not usually so defeatist on these types of things, but honestly, rather than spend $90mil building what I see in that "revised" render I think they should just save the money and keep what we have now. Try again in another decade with a different group of people and a different pile of non-existent money. Because that revised render only looks marginally better than what's there now. Aside from the traffic courts above (which many people including myself don't think really belong there) what is going to be gained? We'll still have a lumpen building ringed by a dank overhang supported by pillars, and the inside market area will still be foreboding and low-ceilinged. Just my thoughts. Hard to find an upside with where this once-promising development has ended up.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
She is a major advocate of the idea. It was and is not her responsibility to run the initial numbers, decide that they are acceptable, produce a budget, put together an international design competition, run said competition then monitor the design process as it evolves over several years.
You may not like Cllr. McConnell as a person but as CityPainter notes above, the problems involved with this project are hardly her fault. By that logic, anyone who agrees with (and possibly promotes) an idea (be it theirs or another party's) is bound to see that idea through to full fruition and is directly liable if anything goes awry. You know that's not true.
kalvinone
Active Member
Agreed. I live in Markham and haven't had a chance to go visit St. Lawrence for a while and wanted to go in the near future. Was excited about the development and would probably have brought me there more often - but now... totally different story; just another boring building.
SP!RE
°°°°°°
I suspect that's the issue here.
jje1000
Senior Member
IMO the design can still be salvaged:
1.) Bring back the wooden louvres (maybe as metal ones), which added a level of complexity and depth to the facade that the current lacks.
2.) Bring back the setback on the south-eastern wing of the building, which helped prevent the building from imposing itself too much onto the corner.
3.) Get rid of the 80s-esque blue paint on the beams and go for something more subtle and reflective like in the orignal renders
4.) Some decorative columns vertically linking the floors above should help retain some sense of verticality in the atrium.
- The new roofline is much less complex, but will handle rain and winter better than the original one, which seemed more suited for a warmer and drier climate
- The atrium looks a bit different, but I think that the original had a fair amount of artistic liberty in its angles
- This building will still be better finished than half the buildings being built today
- The original building cost was likely low-balled, considering that this is a Rogers design
- Pam should see if someone is willing to drop some money on this in exchange for naming rights
- Overall, it's not a bad building, just not as interesting as the original
1.) Bring back the wooden louvres (maybe as metal ones), which added a level of complexity and depth to the facade that the current lacks.
2.) Bring back the setback on the south-eastern wing of the building, which helped prevent the building from imposing itself too much onto the corner.
3.) Get rid of the 80s-esque blue paint on the beams and go for something more subtle and reflective like in the orignal renders
4.) Some decorative columns vertically linking the floors above should help retain some sense of verticality in the atrium.
- The new roofline is much less complex, but will handle rain and winter better than the original one, which seemed more suited for a warmer and drier climate
- The atrium looks a bit different, but I think that the original had a fair amount of artistic liberty in its angles
- This building will still be better finished than half the buildings being built today
- The original building cost was likely low-balled, considering that this is a Rogers design
- Pam should see if someone is willing to drop some money on this in exchange for naming rights
- Overall, it's not a bad building, just not as interesting as the original
SP!RE
°°°°°°
Definitely metal. Don't get me wrong, I think wood louvres look fantastic, but they are far from ideal for the Toronto climate.
Also, I strongly dislike the idea of giving some corporate enterprise naming rights over our city's market.
Last edited:
isaidso
Senior Member
They just turned some fine piece of Danish furniture into an IKEA piece. Ugh, can't they leave anything alone?
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Why would they bring back elements which were eliminated because of cost, not artistic or sustainable merit? You've surely read the part where either RSHP or Adamson indicate that 'no further cuts can be made.(?)'
urbandreamer
recession proof
I think it's time to ditch that Rogers Stinky Harbour design ... for a Retro Post (and Beam) Modern design?
I envision: concrete "post & beams" with fritted glass "barn board" glazing for a fully transparent court & market, sliding "barn" doors at street level, a circulation (elevator, stairs/ramp, bicycle parking) "silo" and more.
From farm to table indeed!
Crazy?
I envision: concrete "post & beams" with fritted glass "barn board" glazing for a fully transparent court & market, sliding "barn" doors at street level, a circulation (elevator, stairs/ramp, bicycle parking) "silo" and more.
From farm to table indeed!
Crazy?
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
No thank you. This aint' Botta's SFMOMA in the early-mid 90s.
CityPainter:
I think the new renderings aren't of a quality that would allow for fair comparison with the initial proposal (the renderings of which is highly stylized). In fact, looking at those renderings, the main "bones" of the proposal still stands - the only regret I have is the loss of the exterior staircase element.
AoD
CityPainter:
I think the new renderings aren't of a quality that would allow for fair comparison with the initial proposal (the renderings of which is highly stylized). In fact, looking at those renderings, the main "bones" of the proposal still stands - the only regret I have is the loss of the exterior staircase element.
AoD
Last edited:
jje1000
Senior Member
I certainly know that these were cut due to costs, but I think reincorporating these elements will help bring the design closer to what was originally envisioned.
junctionist
Senior Member
I think it's time to ditch that Rogers Stinky Harbour design ... for a Retro Post (and Beam) Modern design?
I envision: concrete "post & beams" with fritted glass "barn board" glazing for a fully transparent court & market, sliding "barn" doors at street level, a circulation (elevator, stairs/ramp, bicycle parking) "silo" and more.
From farm to table indeed!
Crazy?
That's terrible. There's a rich history of urban market buildings to draw inspiration from. There's no reason to make it look like a farm building. The food isn't grown here; it's sold here in one of the city's most historic urban places. Mississauga's city hall dignifies the postmodern farm idea; that area was farmland just a single generation before the building was designed.