MetroMan said:
Initially, I also resented so much use of concrete, specially because all of it in the same colour makes the square so monotone. But I realize why they do it now. They're keeping with the style of the architect and the era that City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square were built in. It may not be my favourite style but I do believe in remaining faithful to an artist's work. I would be furious if a future generation were to come by and add splashes of colour to TD Centre towers. "It's too black and monotone" would not convince me at all of the need for any change from Mies Van Der Rohe's masterpiece.
Click to expand...

re: TD - The tint of the glass has changed from a luscious bronze to light greyish green with the current round redo, which is problematical enough.

AoD
 
City Hall is an architect's masterpiece. The square itself was sterile from day one. No landscape architect would consider it a masterpiece to emulate elsewhere. Everything is expendable except the reflecting pool and arches.

While we were right to be cautious in renovating it for the first time given how much great design work has been marred by renovations and poor maintenance in the city's past, it's still apparent that the original design is lacking as a landscape design.
 
I agree wth you junctionist. I've had several arguments about NPS, particularly, the elevated walkway. I hate them. They block the view of city hall and the square from Bay and Queen streets. There's a wonderful sense of anticipation as you travel north on Bay toward Queen street and approach old city hall. When you get to Queen all you can see of NPS is an ugly raised concrete barrier and a truncated glimpse of new city hall. How dissapointing!
NPS is framed by the buildings at its perimeter. There's no need to define it with that ugly walkway. The walkway cuts NPS off from its surroundings and it isn't even complete. The western side of the walkway isn't completed, per the original plan, at the west side of city hall. There is a gap there in order to allow fire trucks access to NPS which further compromises it.
City hall is a masterpiece which should be maintained per the original design. The square and, particularly the elevated walkways ... meh, could be better.
 
MetroMan said:
Initially, I also resented so much use of concrete, specially because all of it in the same colour makes the square so monotone. But I realize why they do it now. They're keeping with the style of the architect and the era that City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square were built in. It may not be my favourite style but I do believe in remaining faithful to an artist's work. I would be furious if a future generation were to come by and add splashes of colour to TD Centre towers. "It's too black and monotone" would not convince me at all of the need for any change from Mies Van Der Rohe's masterpiece.
Click to expand...

You have a strong point.

However, NPS is not a building. City Hall is very concrete and I am fine with it. On the other hand, NPS is a public square, which means it is a public space for people to enjoy. And unlike a building, a public square should be inviting to and liked by the people who pay for it. To preserve some historical meaning shouldn't take precedence. I refuse to think just because the two towers are built this way, the entire square has to stick to the original (but boring) idea, even though it is obvious that there are far better design that can make it more pleasant.

Another difference between a building and a public square is, among hundreds of buildings of different style in downtown, and we can afford to have a few that are ugly but are there to express some artistic view. On the other hand, we only have 2 or 3 decent size public squares here, and we can't have them all be concrete and boring.

Additionally, I am not sure to remain "faithful to an artist's work" we must stick to all the cold concrete. Is that supposed to a theme or something? Why shouldn't there be other ways to make it more pleasant yet still faith to the original work? Plus, why do we have to remain faithful? DO we take it for granted the design is a "master piece? The towers are, but I am much less sure about the square in front of it. What makes it great and untouchable in the first place? An arch, some concrete pavement, a ramp and walkway, what makes any of this so fantastic or creative? Few outside Toronto has any idea about NPS, which probably tells something about its artistic value.

jozl said:
NPS is framed by the buildings at its perimeter. There's no need to define it with that ugly walkway. The walkway cuts NPS off from its surroundings and it isn't even complete.
Click to expand...

Agree. I refuse to kowtow to the idea that just because it is "part of the artist's work, we should always respect the original design". The tower is a master piece, but the square is far from it. Nobody, artists or regular people will be impressed by the great design of NPS. A lot of the elements are poorly designed, dysfunctional, redundant, or outright counter-productive and should be rid of. There is nothing wrong with trying to improve it. It is not like we have 12 public squares to work with.
 
Last edited:
jozl said:
I agree wth you junctionist. I've had several arguments about NPS, particularly, the elevated walkway. I hate them. They block the view of city hall and the square from Bay and Queen streets. There's a wonderful sense of anticipation as you travel north on Bay toward Queen street and approach old city hall. When you get to Queen all you can see of NPS is an ugly raised concrete barrier and a truncated glimpse of new city hall. How dissapointing!
NPS is framed by the buildings at its perimeter. There's no need to define it with that ugly walkway. The walkway cuts NPS off from its surroundings and it isn't even complete. The western side of the walkway isn't completed, per the original plan, at the west side of city hall. There is a gap there in order to allow fire trucks access to NPS which further compromises it.
City hall is a masterpiece which should be maintained per the original design. The square and, particularly the elevated walkways ... meh, could be better.
Click to expand...
I've always felt that the walkways were a flawed idea from the beginning. As you say, a good public square is framed by the buildings around it and doesn't need an artificial enclosure. The walkways date from an era when the trend was to separate pedestrians from car traffic as much as possible, with pedestrians up in the air and the streets given over to cars. That trend didn't last, and the NPS walkways were pretty much the only part that was ever implemented. You can see it in the design of the rest of the square, from the way that fences force pedestrians away from Bay Street to the overhead connection to the Sheraton to the no man's land along Queen. It was deliberately designed to be isolated from the streets around it.

I can't think of any other of the world's great squares that have walkways or other obstacles around them to frame them. Other than St. Peter's Square in Rome of course, but even that has a large opening 100 m wide at its main entrance. The collonades obscure medieval walls for the most part. While the NPS walkways block the view of City Hall and hide the square from Queen Street, St. Peter's is wide open and inviting from the street leading up to it.
 
Last edited:
ksun said:
Nobody, artists or regular people will be impressed by the great design of NPS.
Click to expand...
I agree that there are a number of issues that need to be addressed. I think that most of the remaining ones would be taken care of if the Plant Architect plan were completed. For me, that does not include replacing the concrete. So, @ksun, go ahead and speak for yourself, but don't kid yourself that you know everyone's mind and that you can speak for everyone.

42
 
Something for those interested to note for next week:

NPS Revitalization Awards Celebration: Party time!
The City of Toronto is throwing a party to celebrate the Nathan Phillips Square Revitalization's multiple award wins, and you're invited! The NPS Revitalization Awards Celebration takes place on the square between 12:30 and 1:30 PM on Wednesday, September 21st – the day after the Governor General's Medals in Architecture awards ceremony in Ottawa. Please join the City, PLANT, our joint venture partners Perkins+Will Canada, and the rest of the team as we celebrate the NPS's GG win and more than eight other design awards, with speeches, music, and site tours.​
 
This is sad. The fact that such a screwed up renovation that did nothing to improve the square by any significance wins an award. Our standards are insanely low.
 
I love Toronto but I've been surprised by the speed (slow) and result of this multi-year renovation. The final product comes across as underwhelming. Love the new rooftop "meadow" that graces the rotunda and towers, but the street level plaza appears incomplete and poorly thought out.

In contrast: The "rust belt" city of Cleveland recently completed an amazing USD55MM renovation of one of their public spaces in time for the Republican National Convention. There's a new water fountain which is a veritable children's playground, reconfigured lawns and seating spaces for concerts and speeches, and manicured flower beds that line public seating areas. There's also a new café and public washrooms, and they did all this within the last 2 years. The result is a vibrant new civic space that has more pizzazz and wow than Toronto's.

Check it out: http://www.land-studio.org/project/public-square-redesign


If there's one thing I sometimes don't understand about Toronto is that while it is truly an amazingly safe, clean and progressive city that is the envy of the world, but when it comes to the quality of its public spaces, American cities (those that are not in distress) simply do a much better job at being creative and engaging.
 
Last edited:
Light said:
I love Toronto but I've been surprised by the speed (slow) and result of this multi-year renovation. The final product comes across as underwhelming. Love the new rooftop "meadow" that graces the rotunda and towers, but the street level plaza appears incomplete and poorly thought out.

In contrast: The "rust belt" city of Cleveland recently completed an amazing USD55MM renovation of one of their public spaces in time for the Republican National Convention. There's a new water fountain which is a veritable children's playground, reconfigured lawns and seating spaces for concerts and speeches, and manicured flower beds that line public seating areas. There's also a new café and public washrooms, and they did all this within the last 2 years. The result is a vibrant new civic space that has more pizzazz and wow than Toronto's.

Check it out: http://www.land-studio.org/project/public-square-redesign


If there's one thing I sometimes don't understand about Toronto is that while it is truly an amazingly safe, clean and progressive city that is the envy of the world, but when it comes to the quality of its public spaces, American cities (those that are not in distress) simply do a much better job at being creative and engaging.
Click to expand...
That definitely doesn't wow me. It's boring looking and works for a city the size of Cleveland. Something like that would never work in Toronto.
 
Although it is fair to be disappointed, we should resist overdoing the complaints about the NPS revitalization. They did half a job, and there remains a lot to criticize. However, the podium was closed to the public for years, and is now open with a green roof. The skating pavilion was formerly a cinder block bunker (literally), and has been replaced with a lovely new pavilion. The stage was a needed improvement, and replaces the temporary stage elements that used to be permanently stored under the walkways. The Peace Garden has finally been removed from the square, and is in a much better location. The fountains are a nice touch, despite the horrendous yellow covers they use in the off season. My personal pet peeve, the horrendous chain link barriers that used to prevent people from climbing onto the arches, are gone. And we inadvertently stumbled into having the great Toronto sign.

I get why people are underwhelmed, and it's true that our standards are low and we don't demand better. But it's also true that, all things being equal, the square is in much better shape than it was a decade ago. The renovation is not entirely screwed up.
 
Skeezix said:
Although it is fair to be disappointed, we should resist overdoing the complaints about the NPS revitalization. They did half a job, and there remains a lot to criticize. However, the podium was closed to the public for years, and is now open with a green roof. The skating pavilion was formerly a cinder block bunker (literally), and has been replaced with a lovely new pavilion. The stage was a needed improvement, and replaces the temporary stage elements that used to be permanently stored under the walkways. The Peace Garden has finally been removed from the square, and is in a much better location. The fountains are a nice touch, despite the horrendous yellow covers they use in the off season. My personal pet peeve, the horrendous chain link barriers that used to prevent people from climbing onto the arches, are gone. And we inadvertently stumbled into having the great Toronto sign.

I get why people are underwhelmed, and it's true that our standards are low and we don't demand better. But it's also true that, all things being equal, the square is in much better shape than it was a decade ago. The renovation is not entirely screwed up.
Click to expand...

Personally I don't have any issue with an understated design that respects the character of the square - it is one of our best heritage architecture afterall. What I do have issue is are the details and the watering down - e.g. the whole Queen Street forecourt, and how it still felt like a project half done.

Better isn't good enough. Only the best is. And only the best deserves awards.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Personally I don't have any issue with an understated design that respects the character of the square - it is one of our best heritage architecture afterall. What I do have issue is are the details and the watering down - e.g. the whole Queen Street forecourt, and how it still felt like a project half done.

Better isn't good enough. Only the best is. And only the best deserves awards.

AoD
Click to expand...

Agreed that they should not be having an awards celebration, and I too called it a job half done. But some of the stuff they did is, in fact, great. Personally, I'll take it and demand more.
 
Perhaps when the plantings grow and there's more colour it will be more appealing, at least on the west side. The concrete still overwhelms and the effect is heightened by some of the buildings around it such as the Sheraton street wall, not to mention those walkways. Award winning, hmm...what was the competition for those awards?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top