Toronto Toronto City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | Perkins&Will

[DSC]

See posting 1630 above, which says:
The just released notes on the upcoming capital budget note a new project:

Landscaping along the Bay Street and Hagerman Street frontages, as well as upgrading the pedestrian PATH system located below the Square have been included in the Nathan Phillips Square Revitalization and will be funded from the Public Realm Reserve ($4.5 million). (see p 7 of http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2...file-52555.pdf

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Keeping those hideous walkways for the sake of maintaining the architect's vision makes no sense....I know this is what is publicly communicated but is there more to it? So frustrating!

First, the supposed hideousness of the walkways is by no means a universally regarded truth nor is it a permanent condition that can only be dealt with by tearing them down; second, the practical usage of the walkway - both as shelter and a visual "bound" on the square, is above and beyond "maintaining the architect's vision".

re: Bay Street

Don't expect miracles on the Bay Street front even with improved landscaping - the problem with that stretch of the street runs deeper than that.

AoD

 

[JasonParis]

Keeping those hideous walkways for the sake of maintaining the architect's vision makes no sense....I know this is what is publicly communicated but is there more to it? So frustrating!

To concur with Alvin, there is no agreement that these walkways are hideous. In fact, many like/love them, including me!

 

[Irishmonk]

If the walkways didn't exist in the first place I can't imagine anyone today proposing that the square could be improved with their addition.

 

[junctionist]

The walkways would be a lot more relevant if Toronto completed the +15 style system of enclosed elevated walkways that was envisioned around the time that NPS was designed and under construction. The effect would potentially be spectacular. You'd walk through these corridors through the buildings of downtown, and then finally emerge outdoors onto the grand civic square with a view from above across the entire space with hundreds of other people on the walkways. That's how they were supposed to work, I suspect.

They don't contribute much beyond the sense of enclosure. They could have been designed like a colonnade, so you could walk around the square under a roof when it's raining or in the shade on a hot summer day. But instead, there are benches and stairways to the underground parking garage preventing such a practical use. I can't see the square improved by removing them, unless it was part of a complete redesign to something different than Revell's vision.

I don't know if I would praise Revell's vision that much either. New City Hall is spectacular and shouldn't be modified except with the greatest amount of respect. It's a masterpiece. But Revell was an architect, not a landscape designer, and his landscape design might not have been his strongest strength. So we have the iconic arches over the beloved skating rink/reflecting pool which are great, but large areas of nothing but concrete paving. The revitalization should enhance the square and make it better used, more attractive and more appreciated, but at some point decades in the future, something more radical could conceivably happen in terms of landscape design.

 

[Gphorce]

As someone not alive in the time when New City Hall was built, I feel the concept of 'masterpiece' is lost on me. To me it just looks like two curved buildings that are covered in uninviting concrete on the most visible sides. The podium is fairly banal and doesn't really serve the area that well. The rooftop terrace is almost always closed, and it just feels dated. I'm assuming it would be considered "futurism", but unlike the TD complex, I can really tell when it was built, and that's not a good thing. Do we just say it's a masterpiece because we want to believe that Toronto is relevant in the world of great architecture? Do we say it because everyone else confirms it, but wouldn't feel that way on their own? Or is there some design element that I'm just plain missing? Can someone enlighten me? I would love to share the pride of our city hall. I adore old city hall, but feel that new city hall is nothing more than a surface parking lot with some makeup.

 

[Wrenkin]

The curved buildings are actually covered in marble.

 

[EnviroTO]

If the walkways didn't exist in the first place I can't imagine anyone today proposing that the square could be improved with their addition.

That would be true with a lot of architecture. It fits the time period it was built in and is historic because of that fact. You don't keep historic structures because you would build the same thing again. Why would anyone build Fort York today? Who would build a CN Tower today? I doubt we would build a Scotiabank today.

 

[EnviroTO]

Do we just say it's a masterpiece because we want to believe that Toronto is relevant in the world of great architecture?

It was the winner of an international design competition. It was unique in its time, and honestly I haven't seen a place elsewhere that is similar. Concrete that hasn't been cleaned and a terrace that is closed is not the result of architectural design. Of course with our exposure to the evolution of engineering and architecture many may see Toronto City Hall as dated... it is 50 years old. Without costly ornateness in design that can leave you in awe of the effort an manual labour, I think any building built today is likely to look either dated or common to many after 50 years.

 

[Ramako]

I can't point to any particular detail that makes New City Hall great in my eyes. For me it's simply the form and orientation of the buildings that makes it unique and interesting. I can't immediately think of anything similar.

The starkness of its convex sides gives it a kind of clean utopian simplicity that I associate with brutalism, while the curved form itself creates a sense of human-oriented technological elegance that I associate with Apple products. While I agree that the materials used can make it look dated, I also think that it's one of the best examples of the futurist style and wouldn't look out of place on an alien planet.


There's a reason it made a cameo in Star Trek:

http://blog.demodulated.com/2009/02/16/captain-im-detecting-double-doubles-and-doughnuts/



...and Resident Evil:

http://torontoist.com/2012/06/reel_toronto_resident_evil_apocalypse/



...and Need for Speed:


[video=youtube;odJCRo3A4sI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odJCRo3A4sI[/video]

 

[dt_toronto_geek]

The curved buildings are actually covered in marble.

Concrete with marble inset.

 

[sixrings]

That would be true with a lot of architecture. It fits the time period it was built in and is historic because of that fact. You don't keep historic structures because you would build the same thing again. Why would anyone build Fort York today? Who would build a CN Tower today? I doubt we would build a Scotiabank today.

But you cant equate the walkways to the building itself. For instance a few years ago I remember at the bottom of the CN tower there was a minigolf course. That mini golf course has since disapeared and the aquarium is taking over that area. That doesnt mean that the original buildings archatechture is lost. We might still build a CN tower like structure if we didnt have one. I assume though that the Mini golf would never have made it as the landscaping element. Further more what about the new stage and the removal of the peace garden. Did these additions and subtractions hurt the archatechs vision. Isnt the public art in front of city hall something that was once somewhere else. Does that hurt the vision. If all of these things happened it shows that the city picks and chooses when it violates this vision. The question is why have they drawn their invisible line at these elevated structures?

 

[interchange42]

They have drawn the line there because the walkways are part of Revell's overall design, whereas everything else you mention was not.

So, we will see in a year or two how it all works with the square's new paving out to the Queen Street sidewalk, and the new landscaping, new buildings and gardens to the side, and the glass railings and plantings on the elevated walkways. I'm looking forward to the renewal.

Meanwhile, down at the CN Tower, the mini-golf you mention was a replacement for the original reflecting pond. There were a lot of people unhappy that the reflecting pond was drained and replaced with the mini-golf; the mini-golf was certainly more garish and looked ridiculous next to the massive tower base, but the reflecting pool, which had paddle boat rentals in it, never quite worked either. While I still prefer the reflecting pool to anything else that has gone in since, the truth is that the base of the tower is pretty ugly. The concrete has aged quite badly and the patched areas are very obvious and more than tacky. That's a building that could have benefitted from more attention to detail, like using something akin to the inlaid marble strips at City Hall to improve the wall, which has aged far more graciously.

42

 

[TonyV]

They have drawn the line there because the walkways are part of Revell's overall design, whereas everything else you mention was not.

So, we will see in a year or two how it all works with the square's new paving out to the Queen Street sidewalk, and the new landscaping, new buildings and gardens to the side, and the glass railings and plantings on the elevated walkways. I'm looking forward to the renewal.

.....

42

I love New City Hall. This probably has nothing to do with the fact that I was a small tot when it opened and I remember (vaguely) the hoopla. It has more to do with the wonderful curved twin towers enclosing the clamshell council chambers, our modern Scandinavian wonder.

But while I love New City Hall, I have always detested the depressing and useless elevated walkways around NPS. In fact, I avoid the area because those damned things make me clench my jaw, a guy could break a tooth or two. If they were not there, the marvellous building would be totally visible from Queen. Too sexy for most, I say. Have I ever mentioned that those walkways "cast an undesirable shadow on the square"? Think it over.

I am not holding out hope that the reno will spice those walkways up, 42. But I hope for some magic.

Aside from (please) the walkways, it really irks me that this city's administration sees fit to keep the Queen forecourt so forlorn looking for so many years; this part should have been addressed first, imho.

It's fun to be adding this post while adma, whoever he or she is, is "on vacation" (read banned). Eventually he or she will get back and term me a "weekend urbanist painter" or the like. But frankly I'm ready for the screaming match anytime.

 

[mrgrieves]

There’s many example of beautiful squares from all over the world. How many of them are enclosed by elevated concrete walkways? There is probably a good reason for that. (I know, just because no other cities have them doesn’t mean they’re not good). If I’m walking by on the street, how would I ever know how to access the concrete walkway? There’s no signs anywhere on Queen St, or Bay. If I didn't know better I would assume they’re not even open to the public but used by maintenance workers or to store stuff.

This is from the Plant website. Anyone know if this is still the plan?

“The “U” shaped walkway is reconceptualized in three zones. To the east the walkway is planted on both sides as an allee, and incorporates a substantial planting bed, acting as a raised garden floating in the trees. On the south edge the concrete railing is opened and replaced with a lightly fritted glass fascia that opens up views to the skating rink and reflecting pool. This view is supported by a two tier wood bench that allows viewers to look out over the balcony railing at the square. On the west side the walkway is heavily programmed and literally connected to the restaurant, the concession stand patio, the peace garden and the theatre.

In order to fulfill its potential as a connector to the square, significant slots are cut to bring light and views between the levels. The surface is repaved in terrazzo planks. Benches of reclaimed cedar boards sit on wood carpets, hugging the outside edge of the walkway under shade of the perimeter trees.”

http://www.branchplant.com/landscape/agoratheatre_text.html