Toronto Ontario Square and Canada Square | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

Grimace said:
I don't understand the call for a fountain at York Quay. Toronto has numerous fountains in varying states of repair and disrepair. If Toronto is lacking some grand historic fountain, and there is a reason to build such a thing, York Quay does not seem the place to do it. It is not that big a space and is to be used for events. Any fountain of notable size would significantly reduce the square's useability for events.
Click to expand...

I don't know how the place can be used for events if you claim the area isn't that large. Looking at the design, they have tree/grass areas wrapping around in curves. It's not really a place to hold events. The only place for holding events/tent sales seems to be located on the long strip a long the south east side. North east side is Canada square (not even sure if it's big enough to hold events). The big block on the west side waves around with seats for people to sit or walk. Basically like HTO repeated. Have you seen any events held at HTO park? I haven't noticed any. A fountain to replace that area would have been better.

Ontario square looks kind of like a waste of space. I guess they want to display Ontario and it's abundance of trees.
54816494.jpg


Cultural Landscape. Harbourfront centre repeated with tents.
59280334.jpg

63859907.jpg

31186374.jpg


Canada square looks like where they hold events. But the area looks small.
 
Last edited:
^^

My impression from the presentation is that the whole area will be able to be used as a continuation of Harbourfront Centre and available for its programming, thus the tents in the Cultural Landscape and the event space in Canada Square. A lot of HFC's programming is based on smaller events/markets. The great thing about HFC is not that it has big blowout events but that there is always something interesting going on. Now the QQT crowd will flow seamlessly into the HFC events.

As for splashpads, I have commented in another thread, as someone with young kids in their prime splashpad years, that there is no splashpad shortage in this city. I frankly do not understand the inclusion of so-called "disappearing jets" in Nathan Phillips Square and Dundas Square. Who wants their kids to get all wet when they're out in these places? I go to splashpads with bathing suits, towels. York Quay appears to be intended as an open air cultural space. A splashpad at HtO I could see, but York Quay is not a playground.
 
The presentation seems to indicate the "Cultural Landspace" may still be temporary and something more concrete may be constructed in the future ?
 
With temporary planters, it certainly appears to be that way.

42
 
Grimace said:
^^

My impression from the presentation is that the whole area will be able to be used as a continuation of Harbourfront Centre and available for its programming, thus the tents in the Cultural Landscape and the event space in Canada Square. A lot of HFC's programming is based on smaller events/markets. The great thing about HFC is not that it has big blowout events but that there is always something interesting going on. Now the QQT crowd will flow seamlessly into the HFC events.

As for splashpads, I have commented in another thread, as someone with young kids in their prime splashpad years, that there is no splashpad shortage in this city. I frankly do not understand the inclusion of so-called "disappearing jets" in Nathan Phillips Square and Dundas Square. Who wants their kids to get all wet when they're out in these places? I go to splashpads with bathing suits, towels. York Quay appears to be intended as an open air cultural space. A splashpad at HtO I could see, but York Quay is not a playground.
Click to expand...

There's only one splash pad a long QQ and it's on the east end at Corus Quay. There's none in the centre nor on the west end. I don't consider Concord Park area a splash pad.

The space in the centre of Ontario Square could definitely house a water fountain of sorts. It's just empty space in the middle. Having a water feature there could cool things down in the summer when it gets very hot. It will also be an attraction for locals and tourists.
 
^^ Without even wandering inland, there are splashpads in the Beaches, Sherbourne Common, Toronto Islands and Western Beaches. Until this year there was a big waterpark at Ontario Place. And there are probably about 3 kids under the age of 10 that live on QQW.
 
Grimace said:
^^ Without even wandering inland, there are splashpads in the Beaches, Sherbourne Common, Toronto Islands and Western Beaches. Until this year there was a big waterpark at Ontario Place. And there are probably about 3 kids under the age of 10 that live on QQW.
Click to expand...

There are actually plenty of kids in the area.
Anyway its irrelevant how many kids are on QQW, if you've ever visited Harbourfront Center (doubtful) you would have noticed there are many kids, actually out of all the "attractions / neighborhoods" in Toronto it is arguably one of the most kid centric. Most of the festivals are family oriented and some of these specifically aimed at kids. Clearly the majority of the 12 million + visitors are not from the immediate area.
 
i42:

I believe the parking garage is designed with supporting a low-rise structure in mind.

taal:

The existing Harbourfront complex already has a rather large water feature - why not improve on that instead of putting yet another one in? Actually, when you think about it some more, Harbour Square Park can use a complete redo and a tiered fountain might work far better at that spot, as a terminus for Bay Street (and perhaps a new ferry terminal).

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
i42:

I believe the parking garage is designed with supporting a low-rise structure in mind.

taal:

The existing Harbourfront complex already has a rather large water feature - why not improve on that instead of putting yet another one in?

AoD
Click to expand...

That's a good point, I mean essentially its a giant pond today and that's it. Though they found a fairly practical use for it (i.e. the canoe rides) which always seem busy.
And of course its a skating rink in the winter.
 
Grimace said:
^^ Without even wandering inland, there are splashpads in the Beaches, Sherbourne Common, Toronto Islands and Western Beaches. Until this year there was a big waterpark at Ontario Place. And there are probably about 3 kids under the age of 10 that live on QQW.
Click to expand...

The beaches is quite a distance from downtown. It's not walking distance. You need a car to get there. Likewise for western beaches. You need a car. The plan is to encourage people to get rid of the car if you live downtown. Toronto Islands you need to take a boat ($7 for adults, $3.50 for children). Just to play in the water? The only doable place is sherbourne common. But that's quite a walking distance as well. Harbourfront Centre is a more doable location however, but no splash pads either. Like someone mentioned, it's just a pond for canoeing. Some use the area to soak their feet to keep cool and enjoy the sun. Even though the area is near the lake, there's no area to play with water.

Also you are incorrect about only 3 kids living in the area. There's quite a few kids living in the area. I don't know if they live in the area or are walking to the area, but whenever I walk to cityplace, I keep seeing strollers and baby carriages. I also see children at Parade building quite often. There's even a school bus that picks up and drops off kids near Luna building.

When there are events, there's tons of kids there. The reason no kids hang around Harbourfront when there's no events is because there's nothing to do there. No splash pads, no blowing balloons, entertainment, nothing. You just walk around the area. It's not even really a park. I've seen people and kids hang out at REAL parks. Like the David Crombie park where there's children's slides, splash pads, basketball area, etc. Not the best example, but at least there's something for kids to play with there.

I find it kind of idiotic that the city wants to encourage families to live and work downtown. Yet, they don't provide amusements for children in walkable distance. They mostly provide entertainment for adults. Then they wonder why families don't want to move downtown. All the kids amusements are out of the downtown area. The only amusement park available was Ontario Place where you have to pay quite a bit to get in. What happened to free things children and play with? There's no backyard for condo dwellers. They can't very well play with water like they do in their backyards. That's why families opt to live uptown with a backyard for children to play at. Why not give them a huge shared backyard (park) where all the kids can hang out and play together.
 
Last edited:
AKS:

I find it kind of idiotic that the city wants to encourage families to live and work downtown. Yet, they don't provide amusements for children in walkable distance. They mostly provide entertainment for adults. Then they wonder why families don't want to move downtown. All the kids amusements are out of the downtown area. The only amusement park available was Ontario Place where you have to pay quite a bit to get in. What happened to free things children and play with? There's no backyard for condo dwellers. They can't very well play with water like they do in their backyards. That's why families opt to live uptown with a backyard for children to play at. Why not give them a huge shared backyard (park) where all the kids can hang out and play together.
Click to expand...

You've just shot down your argument - there are splash pads and other kids' oriented amenities in three separate public spaces you've mentioned within what's basically walking distance of each other, plus there is rather large water feature that's basically accessible around the edge. Do we really need yet another splashpad or jungle gym to "convince" couples to raise families downtown, when we know the major issue has more to do with the size and layout of the units? Besides, give the kids some credits, they will make fun of their own in ways of their own choosing.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Minutes from the May 7 WT DRP:

1.0 CWF Development: York Quay Revitalization, Phase II
ID#: 1032
Project Type: Building/Structure and Park/Public Space
Location: York Quay, located between Simcoe Street and York Street, south of Queens Quay
Proponent: Waterfront Toronto and Harbourfront Centre
Architect/Designer: Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Landscape Architects (MVVA) with designer/artist James Carpenter Design Associates (JCDA), Beyer Blinder Belle Architects (BBB), Young & Wright Architects, GHK International.
Review Stage: Design Development
Review Round: Four
Presenter(s): William J.S. Boyle, CEO Harbourfront Centre; Michael Van Valkenburgh, MVVA; Gullivar Sheppard, MVVA

1.1 Introduction to the Issues
Bill Boyle, CEO of Harbourfront Centre, introduced the project noting that the last time the project was presented in March 2011, there was no funding for the open space on top of the underground garage. Mr. Boyle stated that since then, the Province has contributed $10 million toward the creation of “Ontario Square”. Mr. Boyle then stated that the underground parking garage will be open in June 2012, with the public spaces having a target opening date of spring/summer 2013.

1.2 Project Presentation
Michael Van Valkenburgh, Principal with MVVA, provided an update on the overall design of the public spaces including Canada Square, Ontario Square and the Cultural Landscape noting that the spaces were different but complimentary.

1.3 Panel Questions
The Chair then asked the Panel for questions of clarification only.
One Panel member asked what the intended configuration of tents would be in Ontario Square during events, noting that the circular space seemed in contradiction with the typical grid that tents set at during events at Habourfront Centre (HFC). Mr. Van Valkenburgh stated that various layouts had been tested and work, adding that they were balancing the need to make a space that has a dynamic and physical intensity even when it is not programmed. Mr. Boyle added that the programming teams at HFC have reviewed the plan, noting that tents are now laid out in a more organic fashion during events.

Another Panel member asked how the booths and tents were serviced. Mr. Sheppard stated that there are electrical stub-ups that has all been integrated into the paving design.

Another Panel member asked if HFC was committed to maintaining the intensive landscape elements. Mr. Boyle answered that HFC was committed to maintaining this landscape at a high level, adding that elements such as the coppiced landscape are intentionally designed to be low maintenance.

Another Panel member asked for more information on how the Power Plant was addressed and the linkages to the lake. Mr. Sheppard answered that between Queens Quay is less formal in its expression, and not a paved line. Mr. Van Valkenburgh added that it was originally a really strong allee of trees, but that it did not work well with the two spaces. Mr. Sheppard stated that the same paving materials used along the waterfront will be integrated around Canada Square. Mr. Boyle added that there is also a future plan to expand the Power Plant and redesign the entrance so the designs for Canada Square and Ontario Square are taking this need for flexibility in the area into account.

Another Panel member asked how Ontario Square relates to Queens Quay. Mr. Van Valkenburgh stated that Ontario Square is set back from Queens Quay.

One Panel member asked how fast the Metasequoia trees will grow. Mr. Van Valkenburgh stated that they are an extremely fast growing species that will start out at 20-30 feet tall when transplanted onto the site.

Another Panel member wondered how the coppicing of the landscape works on top of the parking garage entrance. Mr. Van Valkenburgh stated that there are a few ways to do it including cutting back ¼ of the Aspen trees every four years which would result in a very dynamic landscape. The Panel member then asked what the worst case scenario was if it was not maintained to that degree. Mr. Van Valkenburgh answered that they would be left to grow and just edited back periodically. Another Panel member asked if the trees would regenerate as multi-stem. Mr. Van Valkenburgh answered that they would, adding that the habits of the trees would become increasingly idiosyncratic.

1.4 Panel Comments
The Chair then opened the meeting to Panel comments.
Several Panel members stated that the design had evolved and improved since it was last reviewed in March 2011. One Panel member stated that they liked the strategy of planting or landscaped “rooms”.

Another Panel member felt that the Jamie Carpenter art piece was good.

One Panel member urged the team and HFC to ensure the viability and long term health of the Power Plant and Enwave Theatre by giving them a “front door”.

One Panel member stated that time-based drawings would help communicate the “coppicing” and how the spaces change over time.

Another Panel member urged the team to increase the legibility from the City side to the lake side. Another Panel member agreed, adding that they did not feel there needed to be a formal allee, but also did not want the connection to be a left over space.

One Panel member felt that the taxi drop off area should be coded more to avoid messy or undefined zones.

One Panel member felt that the Queens Quay edge felt like the butt-edge of the parking ramp, adding that the team needed to consider the how the space is read from Queens Quay. Another Panel member agreed, feeling that there should have been a rendering depicting the Queens Quay perspective. Another Panel member stated that there should be a drawing from building edge to building edge to get a sense of the conditions of the whole site.

Another Panel member expressed concern that the perimeter of the landscaped areas would leave them prone to being walked and abused by the public.

One Panel member felt that the design of the temporary cultural landscape area could be pushed further.

1.5 Summary of the Panel’s Key Issues
The Acting Chair then summarized the recommendations of the Panel:
1) Request for more information in the form of;
a. An elevation from Queens Quay, and
b. Time-based drawings that depict how the coppiced landscape will evolve.
2) Ensure a robust operations and maintenance strategy.
3) More clearly define how the “Lake walk” is used and read.
4) Ensure that the Power Plant is given an address on Queens Quay.

1.6 Proponents Response
Mr. Boyle, Mr. Van Valkenburgh and Mr. Sheppard thanked the Panel for their feedback.

1.7 Vote of Support/Non-Support
The Chair then asked the Panel for a vote of support, non-support or conditional support for the project. The Panel voted in support of the project, requesting that they be updated on the progress with the additional information requested.

http://www.waterfrontoronto.ca/uploads/documents/wdrp_minutes_may_2012_1.pdf (p. 3-5)

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top