CGM
Active Member
When is the realistic expected completion time for this project?
Toronto Ontario Square and Canada Square | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Personally I am not sure if West 8/DTAH would have any say in this project - under their Central Waterfront submission, the site for Canada Square is a village like, low scaled urban area. I am not sure how the competition (for what, a plaza) is going to reconcile with that vision.
In fact, one might wonder whether having yet another open space/square is a desirable thing at all in the area.
AoD
In fact, one might wonder whether having yet another open space/square is a desirable thing at all in the area.
AoD
alklay
Senior Member
I am thinking the same thing. This area calls out for some serious exhibitionistism. Bring on the huge video walls of shooting water (and please, no more winding pathways surrounded by trees, grass and the odd element of whimsy...I want huge gestures).
FutureMayor
Active Member
From my understanding from reading the report, Harbourfront Centre is going along with West 8/DTAH vision of an "urban village" with cafes, shops, and expanded cultural venues surrounding a new urban plaza.
If they combined all the lands the current parking lot site + the area in front of the Power Plant, where a playground and Government of Canada pavilion now stands, there is plenty of room to include achieve the vision.
Louroz
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Thanks Louroz, that's good to know!
AoD
AoD
allabootmatt
Senior Member
As noted above, we are terrible--terrible--at grand gestures. Toronto is much better at small.
...which is why I hope to hell that the architect for Canada Square, in whatever its final incarnation, is not a Toronto firm OR West 8.
Why? Because the only people worse than Toronto at grand urban spaces are the Dutch. I submit Dam Square.
...which is why I hope to hell that the architect for Canada Square, in whatever its final incarnation, is not a Toronto firm OR West 8.
Why? Because the only people worse than Toronto at grand urban spaces are the Dutch. I submit Dam Square.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
/\ But didn't our beloved Jane praise the everyday over the grandiose? The intricacy of daily life over the monumental, perhaps politically motivated, 'grand gesture?'
Additionally, what do you find so egregious in the efforts of the Dutch? To me, they have always been masters of public space, with a keen ability to recognize how small-scale contributions to the city fabric are often more successful than your 'grand gestures.'
Additionally, what do you find so egregious in the efforts of the Dutch? To me, they have always been masters of public space, with a keen ability to recognize how small-scale contributions to the city fabric are often more successful than your 'grand gestures.'
alklay
Senior Member
Jane probably did and she is largely correct. She was probably though talking in the context of the city fabric proper, as opposed to an area destined to be a public space, on the waterfront, in a very tourist and recreational oriented area. Yes, grand gestures in the Annex are probably not the best thing...here at the waterfront, on this spot, maybe just fine. And even safer in light of the many 'intricacies of daily life' just feet away in the same neighbourhood.
allabootmatt
Senior Member
She certainly did. And Toronto does that sort of thing tremendously well, in a virtually countless number of locations. But once in a while the grandiose is appropriate.
A city needs its shared gathering places and symbols, and while the fragmented nature of the vast, vast majority of Toronto is in many ways its greatest strength we are no exception. Right now we have Nathan Philips Square (a great space marred by terrible post-hoc additions which, for me anyway, ruin it) and Dundas Square, which has sort of succeeded despite itself.
If the waterfront is to be a big part of Toronto's future it needs to have spaces that are relevant to people who don't live or work there, and one monumental square is a good place to make sure it does. We are never, ever, ever going to lack the 'intracacy of daily life' here; frankly, we've got intricacy spilling out all over the place. It's the inevitable consequence of a city in which there are literally people living everywhere. Look at Darkstar's horrifying photos of Atlanta for a textbook example of the opposite.
As for the Dutch, I think both Toronto and the Netherlands share a sort of Calvinist discomfort with truly public spaces. Don't get me wrong, both Toronto and, say, Amsterdam have some spectacular spaces that are accessible to the public.
Our inner-city residential streets, and Amsterdam's canals, are in my book some of the most drop-dead beautiful places in the world. But they are so because of a very Jane-esque aggregated ownership, a combination of individual efforts that produces a successful whole. What's amazing about those canals is that most of the buildings along them are actually houses--they are just as much a chain of front doors as, say, MacPherson Ave.
Both we and the Dutch fall down when the ownership is unclear, when something bigger than the house or an individual business has to take responsibility for the appearance of a place. The examples of this in Toronto are legion, and you'll notice them in the Netherlands too if you look carefully. Dam Square is the most obvious example, but there are others too. Amsterdam has no shortage of pretty shabby public spaces, even right in the centre.
There is a huge contrast here to, for example, the French or Spanish urbanistic traditions, which are all about truly public grandeur. The really central public spaces in Paris actually go out of their way to homogenize and hide businesses and residences. Once in a while, that works, as it does behind the colonnades on the north side of Rue de Rivoli. I'm not suggesting anything like that for Canada Square, but I note it as a counter-example to our own, locally-derived ideas about what urban space is supposed to be.
So that's all a long way of saying that I think for Canada Square we should hire an architect from a culture with a different tradition of urbanism than our own, since what I hope we are trying to accomplish there is a kind of public space we don't have any real examples of.
jn_12
Senior Member
well said
I think if we look at successful squares around the world they all tend to have a common feature that Canada Square would also possess: They tend to front a large tourist/cultural attraction. Being at the heart of Harbourfront Centre and the harbourfont in general should make it a success. While I'd rather see a square sit in front of the ROM or AGO, we've built those institutions into the fabric of their streets, so there isn't the space to create a square. This was a bit short sighted, but with Canada Square we now have the opportunity to get something right. I would love to see Harbourfront Centre work with the AGO or even a foreign art museum and try and build something great that would automatically attract people to the space, but even without this, the location should be enough to make it succeed.
I think if we look at successful squares around the world they all tend to have a common feature that Canada Square would also possess: They tend to front a large tourist/cultural attraction. Being at the heart of Harbourfront Centre and the harbourfont in general should make it a success. While I'd rather see a square sit in front of the ROM or AGO, we've built those institutions into the fabric of their streets, so there isn't the space to create a square. This was a bit short sighted, but with Canada Square we now have the opportunity to get something right. I would love to see Harbourfront Centre work with the AGO or even a foreign art museum and try and build something great that would automatically attract people to the space, but even without this, the location should be enough to make it succeed.
Tewder
Senior Member
Excellent post Allabootmatt. I completely agree with you. Variety is the spice of life, and all our messy urbanism, 'intricacy of daily life' richness - as fantastic and desirable as they are - would be even better with some moments of the monumental or the spectacular thrown in for contrast. The CN Tower in a way is such an example, as is NPS, but those harken back to previous generations who had a real desire to assert and manifest their aspirations and hopes for bigger things to come. Successive generations have all but turned their backs on that spirit, for good or for ill. Personally I don't think it would hurt to get a little of that spirit back, especially in such an important and symbolic place such as the Toronto Waterfront. As you say though we are out of practice and have lost the art of doing this. Bring in some fresh ideas, and fresh eyes, from without that can reveal to us the potential for the monumental and the spectacular that resides here but that we seem so oblivious to.
syn
Senior Member
http://www.urbantoronto.ca/member.php?u=316Great post allabootmatt. Some grandiose, awe-inspiring public spaces are exactly what the waterfront (and city) needs.
ProjectEnd
Superstar
Great post allabootmatt - well worded.
The ROM Crystal has opened up the sidewalk and provided for a dramatic, albeit paved, square. The black marble benches provide seating while passersby - whether driving, walking or biking - provide entertainment.
The ROM Crystal has opened up the sidewalk and provided for a dramatic, albeit paved, square. The black marble benches provide seating while passersby - whether driving, walking or biking - provide entertainment.
wyliepoon
Senior Member
When thinking about water features for Canada Square, I think the Crown Fountain is monumental enough. However, if we want to kick the water feature up a notch, perhaps we can replicate the Cheonggyecheon in Seoul, Korea. Create a stream that runs that runs right into the lake, complete with every imaginable water feature and lots of night lighting.
jn_12
Senior Member
Great post allabootmatt - well worded.
The ROM Crystal has opened up the sidewalk and provided for a dramatic, albeit paved, square. The black marble benches provide seating while passersby - whether driving, walking or biking - provide entertainment.
That's barely worth mentioning. I mean something grandiose that represents the value of the building and acts as a focal point for the area. I'm thinking along the lines of a Trafalgar Square or The Champs de Mars/Trocadero. I guess if you really think the ROM's little uh.. "square" is in the same category then to each their own I guess.