News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

I'm surprised that the land values in the area don't justify building a simple, 3-4 level parking deck. My my crude math that would save 2.5 acres of space and cost $7.5 million (I'm assuming a 300-space deck). That's $3 million an acre. I know parking math but not land economics, would that be worth it?
 
You're assuming a construction cost of $25,000 per space for the garage. I suspect that's a bit light, for a multi-level structure. Having said that, some form of construction for parking purposes will be needed, either a garage, or parking at ground level with the building itself above.

I am not an engineer but I suspect strongly that rooftop parking would not work. As Irishmonk points out, rinks have very wide clear spans (ie. no support pillars), and for that reason it would be tough or maybe impossible to put parking above an ice surface. In fact, aside from the parking issue, I wonder if four rinks could be stacked above each other, as soneone had suggested. I would suspect that there is a good reason why things do not get built above ice surfaces.

This will not be an easy puzzle to solve, but hopefully, if some of the city's best architectural thinkers get looking at it, a solution can be found. I don't want to see second-rate planning in this district, but it's hardly a solution to simply say "put this needed facility somewhere else, where it won't matter if it looks too suburban".
 
If it was up to me, I would make multi-level parking with the rinks on top. On the roof of the rinks I would put a grass roof and make it a soccer field (no stands so minimal load considerations).
 
You know I have this secret wish that Toronto never considers itself a great city. A city that considers itself great is a true indicator of a city in decline.
 
^ The sad thing is that it doesn't even have to be innovative – we could just copy examples of better land-use from elsewhere.

e.g. Kettler Capitals Iceplex in Arlington, VA. This is the practice facility of Washington Capitals, and is open to community use when Ovechkin isn't using it. It's built within a mall, and lies on top of 6-7 storeys of shared mall parking. Google StreetView: http://maps.google.ca/maps?oe=utf-8...8&ll=38.878332,-77.109291&spn=0,0.001179&z=20

A quick search reveals that this cost $42.7 million to build.

That is for two rinks and the parking structure was already in place. Assuming that because this is an NHL facility with other luxuries, there might be a couple million (4-5?) extra that wouldn't be needed in a Toronto version.

What is the "budget" for the current proposal ?
 
Ken Greenberg led a very interesting "Jane's Walk" in May 2009 giving a pretty complete overview of the multiple layers of planning that his and other planning consultancies had done for the Lower Donlands area. I'm relying on memory (I really need to go to the Toronto Waterfront web site and look at the plans), but there's no way that a big set of arenas+parking fitted into that location, which is supposed to be a mixed neighbourhood (residential condo/street commerce) adjacent to the reconfigured Don River park topology. It's a really promising area plan.

If this low ambition arena+parking thing is what the city wants to do now, then Greenberg is absolutely right to disassociate himself and his firm from the Lower Don planning process!
 
If he didn't agree with the arena as a land use he should not have joined a team bidding to design it.

He did agree with the arena as a land use; however, he believed that the city would avoid having a massive surface level parking lot there because of the desire to build a great new neighbourhood at that location.

One you see the site, it's really striking how awful this current proposal is. The shipping canal that the property fronts allows for a beautiful waterfront development, but they want to front it with a massive surface parking lot.
 
Oh, I had thought that the arena proposal was parachuted in and something not originally part of the Lower Don planning at that location, or at least not encroaching on the river-bank public park and the mixed residential/commercial character of the development.
 
Love this idea. Studios of America seem to be holding out for cash -- I'd say it's time to lean on them for a decent lease, given that the OPG and City would be landlord and tenant, and they're just the middlemen.
 

See my post about the exhibition about sustainable architecture just opening in the MaRS building: Ecology.Design.Synergy—Green Architecture & New Ideas from Germany The firms mentioned in the Nat Post article have a real track record and expertise in elegant and energy efficient architecture (I haven't seen the exhibition yet).

I really, really hope that the leasing & property ownership problems of the Hearn can be worked out, this would be a terrific facility and building reuse project (there are already other sports facilities in the neighbourhood, so it makes more sense than the Lower Dons lands location).
 
Last edited:
This idea is very exciting. This would be amazing. What a cool space it would create, being so big. All kinds of potential here.
 
I made a brief visit this afternoon to the architecture exhibition mentioned above. There are 5 or 6 models of buildings that Behnisch & partners have designed over the years, but the bulk of the exhibition consists of panels with detailed information on sustainable design processes with an emphasis on how to create buildings that provide an above average working environment: consideration of light, heating, cooling, social interaction. There are also a number of video interviews with collaborating architects and urban planners (e.g. Ken Greenberg, who is working on the Hearn proposal). I'm definitely going back to complete my visit. (During the G20 week, the MaRS building is only open to the public 6am-6pm Mon-Fri, but it is supposed to return to 24/7 public access next week.)
 

Back
Top