Downtown Mississauga Master Plan

[adma]

I'm curious where this label of "internationally important status" has come from? I can't imagine why design of this project would be of any importance internationally, except to the architects. I'm entirely willing to accept that it may well have garnered some sort of acclaim (and thus some perceived importance), but I'd love it if you could provide links or point me in the direction of anything that backs up your "designation".

I'm inclined to think that aside from locals making the claim it to puff their feathers, there's very little international importance at all, let alone enough for historic designation after just 22 years.

I have to run to work, so I can't give an adequate answer. But all I can say is that your laughing stock ignorance is on a level with not knowing of the competition for Toronto City Hall...

 

[matix]

I found slide 22 interesting.. showing the scale of the city centre to downtown toronto.
it's hard to imagine.. but a useful visual.

as for altering City Hall. Don't go there. Has anyone followed the debacle that is the Hamilton City Hall renovation?


... long time troller of the site.. but my first post!

 

[adma]

Unfortunately, this archival-inventory dryness is the best on-line documentation of the Miss City Hall competition.
http://www.ccc.umontreal.ca/fiche_concours.php?lang=en&cId=33
It really needs to be "revisited"--maybe as part of a 25th-anniversary-of-opening symposium?

I found slide 22 interesting.. showing the scale of the city centre to downtown toronto.
it's hard to imagine.. but a useful visual.

as for altering City Hall. Don't go there. Has anyone followed the debacle that is the Hamilton City Hall renovation?


... long time troller of the site.. but my first post!

Knowing Marko, he'd probably think Hamilton City Hall's an unworthy eyesore, too.

And without the alibi of a Toronto/Mississauga-style "international competition" behind it.

 

[doady]

I like Mississauga Civic Centre, because Don Cherry doesn't like it and I hate Don Cherry.

 

[Tewder]

I firmly advocate that we leave our pomo alone! We're too close to it to appreciate it in any meaningful way and we'll likely only end up pulling down buildings that later generations will come to resent us for. The 'fifty' year period following a building's design and construction is the danger zone when shifting fashions and design ideas render the ones they replace most vulnerable. Remember we are only lately starting to re-appreciate the formerly generally-reviled modernism and brutalism of the post-war era...

 

[matix]

there's nothing wrong with City Hall besides 50% of the populations personal opinion.

just imagine the passing of that council decision. "THAT Report No. XXX be approved by Council, to designate $100M of the capital reserve to replace the aging, urrr, ugly existing 22 year old building."

I don't event think Hazel could get re-elected after that one.

replacing city hall won't happen anytime soon.

i personal don't mind it. it intentially incorporates 'barn' elements. it's aged very well - for the most part, i know the staff areas need some spurcing up. but council chambers, the foyer - all good. the outdoor square gets interesting usage.

i like it.

 

[Marko]

Unfortunately, this archival-inventory dryness is the best on-line documentation of the Miss City Hall competition.
http://www.ccc.umontreal.ca/fiche_concours.php?lang=en&cId=33
It really needs to be "revisited"--maybe as part of a 25th-anniversary-of-opening symposium?

Thank you - that was very helpful. I agree that the designs at the time weren't exactly overwhelming - but it's clear to me that they didn't know exactly what they wanted and that people without a trained eye were involved in the decision making process.

They just went with too many different shapes and angles that don't work well within a unified piece of work. It's not unlike an advertisement (or piece of art) that has too many different fonts on the same page (or varying paint styles) - they work against each other and diminish the overall quality.

Knowing Marko, he'd probably think Hamilton City Hall's an unworthy eyesore, too.

And without the alibi of a Toronto/Mississauga-style "international competition" behind it.

Actually no. I'm not saying I like it, but I don't dislike it like I do MCC. The design is consistent and a unified theme is followed throughout.


...and something I missed before I went to LA for a few days...

I have to run to work, so I can't give an adequate answer. But all I can say is that your laughing stock ignorance is on a level with not knowing of the competition for Toronto City Hall...

What kind of silly sophistry is this? Why not ask me when I stopped beating my wife? Toronto City Hall is a whole different discussion and of course I was aware of he competition for both projects. That has nothing to do with my dislike of the final decision, or the fact that the MCC is very unlikely to have the kind of "international importance" that you suggested - just because the competition was international? There are hundreds (if not thousands) of design competitions like this every year.

...and upon further reading, I see you edited one of your posts to infer that I would have to be Hazelphobic to object to respecting the building? First off - I live in Mississauga and have both met and voted for Mayor Hazel. Secondly - I have already made clear that my comment about "obliterating the eyesore" was a facetious comment made more to show my displeasure of the finished product, not to actually suggest its immediate replacement - but you've decided to milk that comment for all its worth. It would be the height of stupidity to actually make a push for this, to designate funds to replace a healthy, functional building after so little time... but that doesn't change the fact that you won't catch me buying a condo with a direct view of it.

 

[adma]

Thank you - that was very helpful. I agree that the designs at the time weren't exactly overwhelming - but it's clear to me that they didn't know exactly what they wanted and that people without a trained eye were involved in the decision making process.

Er, from the site (with spelling de-Frenchified)...

Competition staff and jury
Professional Adviser George Baird

Jury
Phyllis Lambert, Architect
Jerome Markson, Architect
James Stirling, Architect

You call those "people without a trained eye"?

And if those names don't ring a bell with you, talk about the epitome of pot/kettle/black here...

 

[adma]

And it was also on the cover of one of the later editions of Charles Jencks' seminal text "The Language of Post-Modern Architecture" (which pretty well coined the Pomo term). Believe me: I'm not kidding about "international importance"--heck, we're talking about a competition that carried greater gravity in its time than the Marilyn did in recent times. (Though admittedly, we're talking about a municipal administrative building as opposed to a snazzy new condo tower; but, still.)

 

[Marko]

I think pretty much anyone would agree that elected politicians would not usually be considered "trained eyes". That group would no doubt make well educated evaluations and recommendations, but the final decision had to have been up to the city. I highly doubt they would completely abdicate all decision making ability, and this is where I not-so-clearly inferred that the decision making process would have taken a turn for the worse.

I could have clarified "politicians" more clearly, but then someone would probably call me pedantic.

Secondly - there is a difference between a significant competition and a building of importance. Sure, it's an example - maybe even a frequent example - but that doesn't automatically infer "importance", which was to somehow silence any possible negative opinion I might have of the final product. I'm clearly not the only one who thinks they could have done a lot better.

 

[adma]

I think pretty much anyone would agree that elected politicians would not usually be considered "trained eyes". That group would no doubt make well educated evaluations and recommendations, but the final decision had to have been up to the city. I highly doubt they would completely abdicate all decision making ability, and this is where I not-so-clearly inferred that the decision making process would have taken a turn for the worse.

I could have clarified "politicians" more clearly, but then someone would probably call me pedantic.

If you think a Baird/Lambert/Markson/Stirling jury was being swayed by "elected politicians" in making their decision, you're truly naive. Overall architectural currents, maybe; but certainly not "elected politicians", guided their decision.

Heck: left to their own devices, elected politicians would probably have vetoed the winning scheme on terms similar to yours--too ugly and discordant, et al. On balance, it was the jury that overrode them, more than vice versa--believe it or not.

Secondly - there is a difference between a significant competition and a building of importance. Sure, it's an example - maybe even a frequent example - but that doesn't automatically infer "importance", which was to somehow silence any possible negative opinion I might have of the final product. I'm clearly not the only one who thinks they could have done a lot better.

Actually, it's yourself who comes off more the untrained amateur in this argument. And if you're "clearly not the only one", you gotta face it--from the general nature of where most of them live, I wouldn't trust regular Mississaugans at large with matters of heritage or urban aesthetics or judgments of "importance", at all.

You seriously need a refresher course in 1980s Canadian architectural history.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Mississauga City Hall is of greater international architectural significance as a leading example of PoMo when it had some bite, even gravitas, to it ( i.e. for about the first five minutes ... ) than Toronto City Hall - a building of civic and city-building significance but architecturally eclipsed by any number of great Modernist structures - is.

 

[Marko]

OK - so this has been gnawing at me for a while so I just stayed up and did some playing around with photoshop again.

Let me preface by saying that while what they are doing in Markham and Vaughan will probably be OK, I don't like that entire sections of the development will have a cookie cutter 'developer' look to it, which is even worse when they're trying to emulate old world European streets and alleys, etc...

My preference would be to build up an MCC 'downtown' (or whatever) using layouts that we'd see in North America. Square/rectangular blocks (with the occasional deviation) with smaller, individual looking building facades that might range in width from 16 to 50 feet. I would do these, however, around parking structures that would be 3 or 4 levels in height. Eliminating surface parking is a key element and with the additional visitors/residents it will be important to accommodate visitors to Square One (whose parking is being consumed by this) and the new 'downtown' that don't come by transit.

The parking structures are built to accommodate first floor retail with high ceilings. Retail condo units would be sold which includes the facade all the way up to the top of the building. The overall height of the buildings would be in the 4~5 storey range and facades would extend to at least this height. Allowing varying heights will look less cookie-cutter. It's up to the owner of that particular "building" to design and build up to the required height and it could be brick, stucco, glass, whatever - as long as it meets some minimum criteria (height, emulation of additional floors).

The zone is comprised of 6 main blocks and 3+ surrounding blocks, all geared with ground floor shopping, restaurants and services. Running down the middle would be a pedestrian only street/promenade. Think Sparks St in Ottawa. This is where key retailers will want to be and should have a heavy concentration of eating establishments. It might be possible to work in a 2nd floor of office or retail in some parking structures, or maybe just those facing the main pedestrian promenade, but this is secondary.

By creating 7 such parking structures on existing Square One parking land, the number of spots on these lots would double or more - triple being the ideal - in order to handle seasonal highs and/or events in the core.

I've attached the following (rudimentary) plan for the area, laid out to scale over satellite photos. There are proposals for streets where none exist, and others be extended to create a more complete set of blocks to get around within the zone. I've shaded in what would ideally be a good size hotel (with ground floor retail + restaurants)... say on the level of a Sheraton, Marriott, Hilton, etc... as well as a future high rise office tower located across from the Bay parking garage, opposite Ruth's Chris on Kariya Gate. The lot is screaming for an office tower IMO.

So without further ado, here is the first revision of the plan:

.
Goal is to have a feel like this...

.
...and for shits and giggles, here's an aerial render of what could happen down the road with additional high rise office towers (say 30 ~ 45 stories) being added in along Hurontario, as well as the office tower+hotel I've shaded into the plan. I tried to put in placeholders for Absolute World, Wide Suites and what will most likely be more condo towers along Burnhamthorpe between Kariya and Living Arts Dr.

 

[Jarrek]

Marko, good effort. Forward thinking. Toronto could use a street or two that's designated only for pedestrians. I'm not sure why the city can't get it's head around this concept and start closing off some streets.

 

[Basshats]

Marko, is the first image from the Sparks Street Mall?