They mentioned further flood protection + Villiers Island (and the area south of Villiers Island). There's more focus on the east end now since the west end has been considerably more developed. They are also working on other projects like Jack Layton Ferry Terminal, etc. Again, almost everything was treated as touchpoints versus focused discussions.

I chuckled/scoffed when they mentioned transit (it's still in the plans).
 
There are still some spots on the western part of the Central Waterfront (i.e. around Bathurst Quay) that still need attention, IMO.

Certainly not nearly as much as the Eastern Waterfront, but a bit of repaving and sprucing up would go a long way.
 
Avenue said:
"Looks like that Ryerson Building" is a terrible way of rejecting an otherwise nice design.
Click to expand...

The problem went beyond the resemblance to SLC; besides, "nice" isn't sufficient - why shouldn't the panel demand authenticity? And why wouldn't a revised proposal be just as nice, if not nicer, if that's the intended outcome? Let's not lay the blame on WTDRP - the responsibility falls squarely on the proponent.

AoD
 
From the June WT Board Meeting CEO Report (p. 2):

Waterfront Innovation Centre (WIC)
Menkes continues to pursue tenants for the WIC in the market place. Waterfront Toronto, Menkes and City staff are targeting June 30, 2017 to finalize transaction agreements to be executed.
When Waterfront Toronto turned the parking lot at Lower Jarvis into Sugar Beach and built the water’s edge promenade in 2010, the Corporation was laying the groundwork for a bigger plan to revitalize the entire area. That plan designated the property just south of Queens Quay and east of the Jarvis Slip (Blocks 1 and 2 in Dockside) as the location for the Waterfront Innovation Centre.
These blocks are zoned for commercial use but the temporary grassy mound created on Block 1 has been an informal part of Sugar Beach and has been frequently used by visitors to the park.
Last year, Waterfront Toronto applied for environmental approvals to allow us to build an office building – because we now have approval from the Province to allow for the office use, rules and regulations say we have to prevent access to the land until it's developed.

http://waterfrontoronto.ca/nbe/wcm/...&CACHEID=3426ecec-31a9-4572-8488-cebd99a99c8b

AoD
 
From Waterfront For All, getting answers for our questions from Waterfront Toronto:

IMG_0895.JPG


So as of now, there is no design for the Waterfront Innovation Centre. It'll be designed "from the inside out" in partnership with the tenant(s). I don't see the point of having had a design competition.

We better be hoping for someone with deep pockets like Google who have been eyeing a major presence in Toronto and namely on our waterfront. That said, we've definitely made it known to Waterfront Toronto how important good design is to this building and to the waterfront in general. Menkes now knows that they won't be able to pass this under the radar and it's at the front of everyone's mind now.

Let's continue to keep them accountable.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0895.JPG
    IMG_0895.JPG
    1.1 MB · Views: 383
Last edited:
In a talk I had with a Waterfront Toronto representative after the public meeting, they also contended that the competition was to pick a developer, not a design, and in fact, not even an architect. I responded that the public perception of the competition was certainly not that at all, that each developer was paired with an architect, and that the design was trotted out front and centre with the announcement of the winner.

My take is that Waterfront Toronto are managing this one now with some spin, rewriting the history of the competition a little bit to suit the reaction to the design.

42
 
interchange42 said:
In a talk I had with a Waterfront Toronto representative after the public meeting, they also contended that the competition was to pick a developer, not a design, and in fact, not even an architect. I responded that the public perception of the competition was certainly not that at all, that each developer was paired with an architect, and that the design was trotted out front and centre with the announcement of the winner.

My take is that Waterfront Toronto are managing this one now with some spin, rewriting the history of the competition a little bit to suit the reaction to the design.

42
Click to expand...

I don't think the project was ever a straight up "design competition" per se - though it did set up expectations wrt to the final design (and they certainly played it that way in their announcement). Kind of like Bayside.

Note also that WT never really answered the question in the above response - confounding restrictions in tenant usage (which is nice, but not the point) with control over the design, which is through DRP (and having a mixed record vis-a-vis private builds). Good that the issue has been flagged and far more people are watching their moves now. We didn't sign up for WT just so that we can get another Huang and Danczkay on the waterfront.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I'm hoping this isn't PR BS with respect to the design. I have a sinking feeling that when they do the reveal of the "real" design, it'll be more or less the same uninspired architecture. Maybe a nip and tuck here and there, but not enough to really make a difference.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I don't think the project was ever a straight up "design competition" per se - though it did set up expectations wrt to the final design (and they certainly played it that way in their announcement). Kind of like Bayside.

Note also that WT never really answered the question in the above response - confounding restrictions in tenant usage (which is nice, but not the point) with control over the design, which is through DRP (and having a mixed record vis-a-vis private builds). Good that the issue has been flagged and far more people are watching their moves now. We didn't sign up for WT just so that we can get another Huang and Danczkay on the waterfront.

AoD
Click to expand...

Exactly -- for me, there's nothing calming in the responses that either @MetroMan or @interchange42 received. Basically, two potentially mitigating factors were presented: WT DRP review and the potential for a lead tenant to influence the evolution of the exterior design.

@AlvinofDiaspar pointed out the obvious problem with relying on the former, and the latter isn't really anything more than hopes and dreams, because there's no guarantee (or anything close to it) that the eventual lead tenant A) Cares about and wants to spend money on great design, and/or B) Knows what great design is.

We've gotta continue to watch this one closely and make noise loudly.
 
I think the key here is what Alvin just said: a lot more people are watching. — including a large citizens waterfront group. If Menkes and Waterfront Toronto thought that they could just spin this, they now know that a lot of people aren't buying their bullshit and are going to hold them accountable along the way.

That does give me hope that they're going to find a way to produce their best work because they have an audience. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
 
One more point that is worth mentioning is that the Waterfront Design Review panel and/or Menkes did cancel the hearing for the current design. They did that on their own, before the heat was turned up. And when the DRP rejected the first design, they did so, again on their own accord, making the point that this had to be unique. So there is evidence of awareness that they have to produce something special here. And I don't think that they're just going to give up now when there are a lot more eyes on this.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top