Yes, the worst part of the winning design is the pedestrian bridge over Hart House Green. It just separates users from the landscape itself. The area under the bridge will become empty and useless, except for having a driveway into the parking garage. I would prefer a design that brings pedestrians down into the green and animates it with a pond and amenities.
 
Of course they pick the shittiest one. This city's capacity to disappoint never fails.

Not the city. The University. The decision was made by the "Landmark Committee" of UofT, which is made up of faculty, students, and volunteers: http://www.updc.utoronto.ca/Assets/...ning/Featured+Projects/landmark-committee.pdf

Edit: That committee may have just been the one that came up with the scope and requirements. I can't find any info on whether or not they were the ones that selected it, but I am still quite sure that the decision came solely from University stakeholders.
 
Last edited:
Well, they picked the least interesting proposal IMO --

This always seems to happen. This year we also got an inferior design for the Fort York bridge, and a less unambitious Ferry Terminal proposal than what could have been.
 
Couldn't find a separate thread for the secondary plan writ large, but next public meeting for it on April 5 at 6:30pm, 246 Bloor St. W. 5th floor.
 
Does anyone know if this design has won any awards yet? If not, IMO they really shouldn't be calling it "landmark quality" and should go back to the drawing board.
 
The name of it reflects their intentions. If you don't like the plans or, eventually, the result, you get to call them out on it, but they're not going to change the plan's name.

42
 
^ wasn't asking them to change the name lol.
actually, would prefer if they change the design.

Was making the point that if they're going to talk the talk (i.e. give it a name like that), they really should walk the walk (i.e. the design should be stellar- something people would talk about and would want to make a trip to come see).

Take for instance the new Daniels building. That's landmark quality.
Or going away from U of T, even some of the subway stations on the line extension are pretty damn good looking. People were talking about these even before they were constructed.
With this project, the buzz is really ho-hum. I mean, we're only on page 3 here in the forum and this has been under planning for quite a while already.
 
sadly, the webpage from two pages back with the competing proposals is dead -- https://landmark.utoronto.ca/design-competition/all-entries/

Does anyone have a weblink where the entries can still be viewed?

U of T can be frustratingly opaque, and generally is not welcoming of criticism. I'm sure the committee worked hard, but such assemblies of non-experts often make the most conservative decisions.
 
sadly, the webpage from two pages back with the competing proposals is dead -- https://landmark.utoronto.ca/design-competition/all-entries/

Does anyone have a weblink where the entries can still be viewed?

U of T can be frustratingly opaque, and generally is not welcoming of criticism. I'm sure the committee worked hard, but such assemblies of non-experts often make the most conservative decisions.

I still have a copy of the files - can repost later.

The name of it reflects their intentions. If you don't like the plans or, eventually, the result, you get to call them out on it, but they're not going to change the plan's name.

42

Though admittedly it is rather corny to use such a snooty name.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I am still quite sure that the decision came solely from University stakeholders.

I am almost certain of it. The most notable recent example is 1 Spadina Circle, where student input was not used (nor was it genuinely sought, until the building was well under construction, at which point it was only consultation re: the layout of the studios, none of which was ultimately used anyway!). Let's just say it's caused a lot of issues.

I would hope that students were consulted/involved in the design process of this new campus landscape, but I highly doubt it went beyond platitudes.
 
Two of the four finalists:

JRS/aA/ERA

upload_2018-3-29_19-42-32.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-42-43.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-42-50.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-42-58.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-43-6.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-43-14.png

(U of T/JRS/aA/ERA)

DTAH/MVVA:

upload_2018-3-29_19-44-8.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-44-19.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-44-27.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-44-35.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-44-42.png


upload_2018-3-29_19-44-50.png

(U of T/DTAH/MVVA)

AoD
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-3-29_19-42-32.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-42-32.png
    838.3 KB · Views: 1,042
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-42-43.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-42-43.png
    1.5 MB · Views: 1,110
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-42-50.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-42-50.png
    1 MB · Views: 1,057
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-42-58.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-42-58.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 1,052
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-43-6.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-43-6.png
    1.1 MB · Views: 1,051
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-43-14.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-43-14.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 1,061
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-8.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-8.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 1,059
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-19.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-19.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 1,065
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-27.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-27.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 1,106
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-35.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-35.png
    1.4 MB · Views: 1,050
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-42.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-42.png
    1.2 MB · Views: 1,131
  • upload_2018-3-29_19-44-50.png
    upload_2018-3-29_19-44-50.png
    278 KB · Views: 1,012
I wish they had the same ambition with the new engineering building, which awkwardly dominates buildings of actual landmark quality like Knox College when seen from King's College Circle.
A Shim-Sutcliffe building at U of T would be amazing. Why are they barely utilized in this city?
 

Back
Top