Toronto CityPlace Puente de Luz Bridge | ?m | ?s | Concord Adex | Francisco Gazitua

Red Mars said:
hzrhC.jpg
Click to expand...

When are they going to pour the concrete already?

Love this bridge BTW, really excited for it. And only yellow bridge in Canada as far as I know.
 
ceaz40 said:
I looked back in the thread...but couldn't find it. How did this bridge get such a Spanish name in Toronto? Can someone explain it to me...love Spanish names so not against it, just curious.
Click to expand...

It's designed by a Chilean architect, Francisco Gazitua, who was also commissioned by Concord Adex for most (all?) of the rest of CityPlace's public art.
 
interchange42 said:
Not to nit pick Grey, but if a six-lane highway bisecting CityPlace makes it suburban, then Chinatown, and everything else along Spadina, is suburban.

Truth is that once the Signature tower goes in, the corner of Spadina and Bremner will feel significantly different. Imagine if Signature is built out to the sidewalks on all sides, and 90% retail frontage. And a higher-ceilinged main floor than what we have seen otherwise in CityPlace. That could go a long way to ameliorating the lacklustre pedestrian realm created by the unimaginative planning of the surrounding buildings.

42
Click to expand...
Not that a highway bisecting a neighbourhood is a condition that makes it suburban in itself, but it's a challenge against it and I don't think the buildings meet it in an effective urban fashion. Except for the intersection at Fort York Blvd (and even then, only the west wide), Cityplace faces the highway with blank glass and concrete facades -- nothing that would engage people on the sidewalk. There's a clear difference in how buildings address the highway further up Spadina (even after street widening). I'd argue that the townhomes / lofts they built into the side of the towers shouldn't just be facing the interior streets, but also Spadina.

Totally agree with your points regarding Signature. If it's held to today's standards, it could go a very long way towards improving this.
 
Last edited:
grey said:
Not that a highway bisecting a neighbourhood is a condition that makes it suburban in itself, but it's a challenge against it and I don't think the buildings meet it in an effective urban fashion. Except for the intersection at Fort York Blvd (and even then, only the west wide), Cityplace faces the highway with blank glass and concrete facades -- nothing that would engage people on the sidewalk. There's a clear difference in how buildings address the highway further up Spadina (even after street widening). I'd argue that the townhomes / lofts they built into the side of the towers shouldn't just be facing the interior streets, but also Spadina.

Totally agree with your points regarding Signature. If it's held to today's standards, it could go a very long way towards improving this.
Click to expand...

The town houses should absolutely not be facing Spadina. There's no attempted townhouses facing Spadina anywhere and no successful small residential projects throughout the whole avenue and there's a reason for that.

Your arguments make zero sense, using terms like 'effective urban fashion' just make you come across as not very knowledgeable and pretentious. You are defining urban as whatever the hell you want to - you seem to think urban is about aesthetics, but it isn't.

High density housing where the majority of people meet most of their needs by walking or taking public transit and where biking, walking, and public transit are the most common commuting mechanisms in a part of the city that's surrounded by jobs retail and more high density residences on all sides is as urban a community as any.

Your problem seems to be with residential neighbourhoods if anything, but if you knew what you were talking about you'd realise that all big cities in their core have residential areas and also commercial areas.
 
RC8 said:
The town houses should absolutely not be facing Spadina. There's no attempted townhouses facing Spadina anywhere and no successful small residential projects throughout the whole avenue and there's a reason for that.
Click to expand...
Townhouses were my quick solution to the block-long blank walls facing Spadina. I didn't mean to imply that there are townhouses all over Spadina. Spadina is lined with storefronts, but I'm trying to distance myself from the idea (not mine) that Cityplace should be some sort of retail shopping zone at street level, which it can't and shouldn't. That's how I arrived at townhomes/lofts, which already exist at Cityplace. I'm sure there are more effective ways to fix these dead zones. How would you redesign it?

RC8 said:
Your arguments make zero sense, using terms like 'effective urban fashion' just make you come across as not very knowledgeable and pretentious. You are defining urban as whatever the hell you want to - you seem to think urban is about aesthetics, but it isn't.
Click to expand...
Sorry I pissed you off so much with my elitist communist ideas! I guess it was pretty lazy on my part to not elaborate. My idea of effective urbanism mostly revolves around ideas like walkable urbanity and pedestrian-scaled environments. There's a lot more to it than that, but in this context, that's what I mean.

You seem to want to frame me as some sort of anti-height idiot. I have absolutely no problem with high-density housing (I live in high density housing). but I think mixed-uses are a more effective way to address the street than block-long blank facades. Again, that's where the live/work loft idea comes from.
 
Last edited:
Pics taken August 12, 2011


bPjUj.jpg



h1Yth.jpg



3RPBa.jpg



rDkci.jpg



KsAwI.jpg



araDa.jpg



kgYMp.jpg



ZH4dg.jpg
 
I really hope they install stairs to take you up to the bridge via the opposite side of the ramp on the Cityplace side. It would suck having to walk to the ramp, and then walk back towards Spadina along the ramp to get on the bridge.
 
Tuscani01 said:
I really hope they install stairs to take you up to the bridge via the opposite side of the ramp on the Cityplace side. It would suck having to walk to the ramp, and then walk back towards Spadina along the ramp to get on the bridge.
Click to expand...

From one of the photos, its shows a ramp going to the west of the south section which is odd when it should be going to the east. No stairs due to accessibility issues and bikes.

Having said that, that will be a weeeeee!!! ride down on a slippy day and who going to clear the snow?

If this bridge is to open in Nov, you will be walking through the construction zone, since both projects will not be finish until late 2012 as plan. If the ramp was to the east, the construction zone would have less impact on the access to the bridge.
 
hawc said:
That's interesting. One support to hold the bridge and a separate pillar for the end of the ramp. I would have thought they'd be the same.
Click to expand...

Load bearing and expansion joint. Both ends of the bridge will have expansion joints and that the reason for the double support at the north end.
 
Wow! I didn't realize how large this bridge was until I saw this pic by Red Mars. Until now I hand't seen anything next to it that could give me a sense of scale so I thought the bridge was about 8 to 10 ft tall. The man in the picture shows that it's about 25ft. Is that about right?

KsAwI.jpg
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top