News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

jn_12 said:
I have to say I agree with Holyday when he says that this is the Rolls Royce of arenas and that you could probably have a few more rinks if you take a much more conservative approach. Paying double for 4 rinks makes little sense and there's no need for a rink to be LEED Gold certified. We have a huge rink shortage in this city, and that money could be used to put a huge dent in that shortage. Yes, I understand entirely the urban issues and the desire for a complex that fits the urban fabric, but I think this has gone a bit far.
Click to expand...

If this were in some other location, I might agree. The real problem is that we simply shouldn't have a huge rink complex at this spot, period. I think the stacked proposal makes the best of a bad situation, and does a good job of preserving the character of the waterfront. We are already spending vast amounts of money to get the kind of waterfront we want -- I see the additional cost of the stacked proposal as just a continuation of that outlay.
 
Rowe:

About that figure. That said, one can't expect the budget to be able to absorb jumps like these without negative impact to other programs. Would one risk other worthy projects, such as St. Lawrence Market North in order to fund this one?

Don't get me wrong, I like the proposal, but I think the city has to explore additional funding options instead of just dumping another item into the budget.

AoD

PS: Article from the Globe:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...d-arena-would-cost-88-million/article1671393/
 
Ya I understand entirely the need for good design on the waterfront, but there are ways to fix any issues that would come from the prior proposal in the long term that don't necessitate a massive over-payment on recreational facilities (for example, you can develop on parking lots when the market dictates, and any development can have a parking component built in). If we can be creative today with this adapted office tower proposal, why can't we be creative with the fixing issues stemming from the earlier proposal? (yes, the easy rebuttal is, why fix things later when we have a chance to get it right right now... but I think there are creative and viable solutions for when we need it).

To me, when it comes to rinks, especially those being used for amateur purposes, it makes very little sense to go state of the art. Quantity has a far greater impact on the lives of Torontonians than quality. I've played in some of the dumpiest arenas in North America and some NHL rinks, and when it comes down to it, it's just some ice to play on, which is all we need. I'm pretty concerned about the fact that the price of 4 rinks could buy 8 or more. It's not the sticker-shock. I'm all for spending on things that we need at whatever price we need it, but I don't think we're getting value here. I'm also really concerned that we're going to make some big mistakes in building this rink (the all-glass walls is the first red flag in my books). We're kind of heading into unknown waters and there's a lot at stake. Any over-spending seriously cuts into money that could be spent on other rinks in the future and we know politicians will be hesitant to invest further if that happens.

Obviously everyone here is of the mind-set that good design matters. I agree wholeheartedly, but sometimes, good-design just doesn't make practical sense. I think this is one of those few times.
 
^ The Richmond Oval had a big portion in glass.

I don't wanna settle for option 'number cheap'.
 
jn_12 said:
To me, when it comes to rinks, especially those being used for amateur purposes, it makes very little sense to go state of the art. Quantity has a far greater impact on the lives of Torontonians than quality. I've played in some of the dumpiest arenas in North America and some NHL rinks, and when it comes down to it, it's just some ice to play on, which is all we need.
Click to expand...


I kind of get your drift--but by that measure, we might as well avoid making a mountain out of a molehill by letting unapologetically workaday/nondescript joints like George Bell Arena carry the weight in lieu of the Portlands. (Not that that's bad or anythng.)
 
Your right, the Oval is a world-class, LEED, Olympic standard facility; it can't come close to what is going to be built here. I don't understand the debate on the an all glass ice rink. As long as the refrigerant keeps the building and the ice cool enough, there should not be an issue. If there is an issue... UV blinds.

When it comes to buildings for the public, I personally feel that you must 'go big or go home.' Also this area (as everyone knows) was designed already by some of the world's best. To have just an ‘average’ ice rink here makes all that effort worthless.

The whole "Quantity has a far greater impact on the lives of Torontonians than quality." is a totally unreal argument. Why do people on here complain about the amount of new Blue/Green-ish buildings? Why do people in Toronto want subways (the MOST expensive) rather than light rail/BRT? Why did people slam Bloor's new development?

People want the best for their city when it comes to the public realm, because it is their money. Do people complain about the price tag? Always. But it betters to have critiques before/during a development than after.

Doesn't matter what it is, education, business, or urban design it's "quality over quantity."

I do however respect how you feel on this.
 
Last edited:
Ya I understand entirely the need for good design on the waterfront, but there are ways to fix any issues that would come from the prior proposal in the long term that don't necessitate a massive over-payment on recreational facilities (for example, you can develop on parking lots when the market dictates, and any development can have a parking component built in).
Click to expand...

The parking lot issue is above and beyond the fact that the complex is 2s, occupying an entire block (not inclusive of said parking) in an area that's designated for waterfront revitalization.

If we can be creative today with this adapted office tower proposal, why can't we be creative with the fixing issues stemming from the earlier proposal? (yes, the easy rebuttal is, why fix things later when we have a chance to get it right right now... but I think there are creative and viable solutions for when we need it).
Click to expand...

If you propose a rink design that would allow additional buildings to go on top, and with parking below chances are you will increase the cost by just as much.

Obviously everyone here is of the mind-set that good design matters. I agree wholeheartedly, but sometimes, good-design just doesn't make practical sense. I think this is one of those few times.
Click to expand...

If that's the conclusion, then perhaps one should chose an industrial site for this land use instead.

AoD
 
Just to reiterate, the problem is the location. We have fought so hard to have a waterfront to be proud of, and a sprawling arena simply isn't compatible with that vision. If the proposed solution is too expensive, then perhaps the whole arena should go in some other location, instead of spoiling the waterfront.
 
Well, on that basis, the Behnisch/Transsolar proposal for the reuse of the Hearn Power Plant wins: the hockey rinks would go inside an existing building, and new design and engineering elements would ensure both energetic and financial sustainability. See my posts #88, #96 and #126 in this thread for more links on information about this proposal.

In the video of Behnisch and Auer's July talk at MaRS, the project is discussed starting at roughly at the 30 minute point.

The Behnisch Architekten website is entirely Flash-driven, so there is no direct link to the project renderings, but if you follow the link at the right of the obituary of Günter Behnisch to the main Flash page, and click on the "Sports/Leisure" square, then position the mouse pointer on the vertically scrolling images of projects, eventually the Hearn Power Plant project appears (Down with Flash! Grrrr!!!). The downloadable PDF does NOT have the detailed renderings, unfortunately.

I'd prefer the $88 Mio. be spent on something innovative like this, rather than on a glass box. Come on Toronto, Raise Your Ambition!!!

To attract even more people to the location, why not add something popular like Thorsell's "Cosmology Centre", also? And an overflow outpost of the Ontario Science centre? There's plenty of space! (There must be existing railroad tracks from the Don Valley/Union Station corridor to the power station, so rapid transit is already a possibility to handle the crowds...)
 
insertrealname:

Here is a quote from the report posted (p. 4):

Capital partnerships for the project were actively pursued. Concurrent to negotiations with Ryerson University, the Toronto Rock (lacrosse) and other sports and cultural organizations, the feasibility of an adaptive re-use of the Hearn Generating Station, located in the south eastern quadrant of the Port Lands, was explored. The site’s access to services, need of a long term use and exciting potential as a multi-use sport, recreational and cultural complex were outweighed by the estimated costs of the building rehabilitation and re-purposing, combined with the significantly high appraised lease buy-out value.
Click to expand...

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top