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

After having viewed the presentations and models in person, I'm now leaning towards either Baird or Zeidler.

I would actually be quite happy if any of the designs are implemented with the sore exception of Rogers. I don't like it at all. It ruins the SQUARE in NPS. What we don't need is another park in this space, specially one encroaching onto the urban space we expect from a civic space such as this.

Osgoode Hall fills the role of leafy park well enough for this area. Grange Park and other parkettes are available close by.

I would have supported Zeilder full heartedly, but I'm not sold on these temporary planters everywhere. Seems like all they've done for the square was gone out and got a bulk discount on concrete planters and then done work exclusively on the western edge.

Of course, a more educated and researched comment will show the glass sides on the walkways (love that: it opens up the square form Queen St.... all the proposals should have thought of that), an extended reflecting pool and complex lighting systems.

I'm hoping for Zeidler but I'd be real happy with Baird too.

P.S. Seems like Toronto Star readers agree according to their poll.
 
However I am dissapointed overall that the finalists were not bigger architectural/landscaping names. The TWRC competitions, for example, have consistently attracted--and selected--some of the most cutting-edge firms in the world. The Central Waterfront round being the best example. But here we have three decidedly second-tier Toronto firms, and one international of limited prestige. Where are KPMB, aA, and Hariri, let alone Field Operations or Foster and Partners? The TWRC seems to have figured this end of things out, but City Hall evidently has not.
Click to expand...

This actually doesn't bother me. City Hall & Nathan Phillips Square is already a significant architectural accomplishment. There really wasn't going to be a massive change made. It's nice to see some firms that could provide a fresh perspective.
 
Nope... I thought you and a few more guys walking around in there might be UT members (there's something about us that's instantly recognizable). You seemed familiar though. I guess I'd seen you at other events.

You were shooting with a Sony Cybershot right?
 
Metro:

I was there by myself, but yes, I had a Sony Cybershot with me.

AoD
 
allabootmatt:

Some name architects might have an issue with a proposal that places stringent limits as to what they can and cannot do. I think that was one of the reasons why Jean Nouvel and Foster was orginally shortlisted for ROM and subsequently dropped out.

AoD
 
Yes, his next big project is to build a stairway to somewhere or other.
 
I got there at 7:30 p.m. How thoughtful of them to have a buffet waiting for me.

The American bidder, Rogers Marvel,with their glass-faced lemming cliff and Adirondack chairs, went for the kind of 'big wow' gesture that might look pretty in glossy foreign architectural magazines, but doesn't reflect the more respectful Toronto Style solutions produced by the local firms.

Plant's design was the most polite, I thought, though their Really Big Stage is soooo 2007. As tudararms suggests, do we really have to programme everything? The Square already is a stage, as are such places as Piazza del Campo and Piazza Navona to give but a couple of examples that work just fine. I like how they've opened up the Queen Street entrance to the Square, though the taller trees will block views of City Hall's towers in the summer. In fact, all the entries seem to have treated the Queen forecourt similarly well.

I like the strongly directional north/south axis of Baird Sampson Neuert's design: the plantings on the west side are parallel and in proportion to the buildings they create in the Square - whose roofs echo the curves of the towers of City Hall. The oval building at Queen and Bay also references the curved towers, in that cheap-trick-populist-appeal way. Perhaps the most contextual of the designs.

Zeidler does something similarly boldly directional with their treatment of the west side, but their garden is raised, and blocks off views into the Square from the west as much as the lemming cliff does. Still, like the other local firms they help de-clutter the Square by giving the Peace Garden the old heave-ho.
 
We are blessd to have some real articulate posts here.

The more I read and the more I look, the more I think that building babel and others are right about the Rogers Marvel design. Silly items in renderings aside (camp fires?) the Wonderland wilderness mountain really has no place at the square. It distracts more than it adds and it is certainly out of context.

The Plant design is appealing but I can't help think that those wood benches (that look like they were transplanted from 1973) will look like crap in about three years. (Re)moving the peace garden is also a great idea but replacing it with a water feature is unncessary and also distracting.

The popularity of the Baird Sampson Neuert on The Star site is surprising to me. It does not offer much in the way of 'popular' appeal. I also find their plan adds something unnecessary for every decent item/idea brought forward (please no windmills surrounding all sides of the building...and do not add more overhead walkways).

Zeidler...well, I am not going to be as harsh as some as I think there is some great design in the project and some interesting ideas. But do they really want the new refurbished square to have the crappy trailer stage sit out all summer because they could not integrate a decent permanent stage on the west side?
 
The 'square as a stage itself" sounds like a nice phrase for a masters thesis but it really does not take into account what happens at the square. Throughout the spring, summer and fall, (and to a smaller extent, the winter) almost every day there is programming in the square that utilizes a stage (concerts, speeches, rallies, charity events, lunchtime concerts, group gatherings, etc). The 'temporary stage' which many seem to want, becomes a permanent eyesore whether its the trailer that sat outside for most of the summer or the 'erect-a-stage' that blights the square and blocks the Moore sculpture. The reality of the square, and the use of it by its citizens, demands a stage that looks better than something 'temporary' (aside from the cost of taking one down and putting it up so often).

I walk through the square almost every day and these temporary stages are a crime against the space. I am not sure the huge Plant fixture is a solution but I get the feeling that the plans that allow a temporary stage, do not see the square often enough (as they would not want their visions cluttered with a trailer as a stage).
 
Oh I agree that the temporary stage is an eyesore. But the Square survived, stageless and perfectly functional, for decades. Once the passing fad for stages wears off what will we do if we're stuck with a permanent one? Tear it down, one hopes.

I think we should resist the temptation to overprogramme the Square.
 
I'm going back later this evening after work to give them all another try. I am still leaning towards Roger Marvel, but will try to approach all again with a fresh perspective.

The Star, the last time I looked, had Zeidler's proposal leading the poll. Ick.
 
When do they decide the winner? And who's deciding the vote?
 
From the Post:

Even an icon can be improved
ROBERT OUELLETTE, National Post
Published: Thursday, February 22, 2007

Toronto's most celebrated modern landmark, our City Hall, will soon change. But what will the redesign of Nathan Phillips Square tell us about who Torontonians are today? Do we have the courage to accept bold designs?

Finnish architect Virilo Revell's new City Hall gave form to Toronto's mid-century modern aspirations. His vision was so successful, it is a symbol as recognized internationally as the Sydney Opera House.

Many people in our city consider it perfect. Others argue the surrounding plaza is not as powerful as the buildings it frames.

Whatever your opinion, internationally respected buildings are sacred trusts. Designers are justifiably wary about changing them.

That wariness is evident in the four design proposals for the plaza revealed on Tuesday evening. Standing in the shadow of greatness can be unnerving. It also explains why the two most unself-conscious schemes are either from out-of-town designers or from young firms that don't hold back.

Plant Architect Inc. is a team already making its mark in Canadian design. Led by principals Chris Pommer, formerly with Bruce Mau Design, and Lisa Rapoport, Plant's scheme is unashamedly urban.

Pommer says their design "makes a coherent and engaging urban room inside a green perimeter." That's good, because the perimeter is now the plaza's biggest weakness. Beyond the square's signature elevated walkway, its edge is uninviting. Plant solves this problem in two key ways.

First, their proposal echoes City Hall's lobby floor design by recreating it outside on the plaza's paving system. The water-permeable paving will run edge to edge across the site, making it clear where the street ends and the square begins -- the way an area carpet defines key parts of a room.

They then line the walkway colonnade with trees and grasses to further strengthen the new edge -- a distinct natural space for year-round visitors. Entering the square becomes an experience akin to walking out of a forest into a clearing.

Their landscape design is most engaging at the west edge of the square. Here, elements such as the Peace Garden blend together with reflecting pools, trees and sculptural elements to create a place for quiet contemplation in an otherwise frenetic city.

While these design moves are strong, what impresses most about the scheme is its urbanity: There is a Helsinki-meets-Milan level of detail to Plant's urban elements that may just have pleased Revell.

The essential theatre sits on a podium of low stairs readily accommodating the square's performance functions. Nearby, roughly where the skate rental building now sits, will be a 5,000- square-foot restaurant. Its dual height space, glass walls and open roof terrace will ensure the square is a year-round destination.

The project by Rogers Marvel Architects of New York takes a contrasting approach to designing the plaza.

Much like the Harbourfront design competition winners, they, as outsiders, see Toronto as a place as much informed by the mystique of the Canadian wilderness as it is by attempts at modern urbanism. All that nature up here has to be represented in some way.

The team's big gesture is to create an elevated berm on the western edge of the plaza. Tree covered, it rises escarpment-like to embrace the walkway. An iconic, tongue-in-cheek image shows picnickers warming themselves next to a fire pit overlooking the square.

Paradoxically, below the trees is an elegant glass-edged interior space providing shelter in winter and access to a restaurant year round.

Like Plant, Rogers Marvel also makes the outer square a part of the visitor experience, so much so that they run their paving and planting scheme across the street as a much-needed gesture in front of Lennox's Old City Hall.

It is a good idea and probably will end up in the scheme no matter who wins.

Unlike Plant, this team keeps the Peace Garden where it is, an understandable gesture given the pavilion's meaning, but ultimately it confuses Revell's minimal intentions. Plant's design gives visitors more room for solitary contemplation -- something lacking in its current placement -- while also simplifying the plaza.

Is Nathan Phillips Square an intense urban experience or is it an opportunity to embrace the wilderness? The jury makes its choice on March 8.

© National Post 2007

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top