It’s going to take a generation to build it out, but one of the most exciting revitalization projects in Toronto is going to be the Port Lands area. However, before that can really start happening and new communities can be built, the entire area needs to be flood protected. Currently about 290 hectares (717 acres) in this part of the city are prone to flooding.
One component of the flood protection program is the Cherry Street Lakefilling Project. Below is a plan of what that means (from Waterfront Toronto). The area in purple is new land that will be created as part of the process. Supposedly this is important for a few reasons. For one, it will allow the Cherry Street bridge to be relocated, which, in its current location, is creating a pinch point during floods.
I am mentioning all of this today because I am personally excited about this revitalization project. Hopefully I’ll see it complete in my lifetime. And maybe I’ll be fortunate enough to work on some of the buildings when that time comes. I also really wanted to share the below video with you all, showing the lakefilling in action. I bet many of you aren’t aware that this is happening.
If you can’t see the video below, click here.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0q_Wvn91zE?rel=0&w=560&h=315]
Below is a good discussion with Aaron Renn about how to brand a city. I fully agree with two of the points he makes: (1) Not enough cities are thinking holistically about this topic and (2) tech startups, bicycle lanes, and craft breweries aren’t going to cut it as a strategy. Every city is focusing on that sort of stuff these days. Zero differentiation. Find something germane to your city and start building on it. If you can’t see the embedded podcast below, click here.
[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/436104924" params="color=#ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true&visual=true" width="100%" height="300" iframe="true" /]
A condo developer friend of mine once told me something along the lines of this: “Brandon, I have generally learned over the years that if I like something, it probably means the general public [our purchasers] isn’t going to like it. And that’s because if I like it, there’s probably something unique or quirky about it.”
It’s going to take a generation to build it out, but one of the most exciting revitalization projects in Toronto is going to be the Port Lands area. However, before that can really start happening and new communities can be built, the entire area needs to be flood protected. Currently about 290 hectares (717 acres) in this part of the city are prone to flooding.
One component of the flood protection program is the Cherry Street Lakefilling Project. Below is a plan of what that means (from Waterfront Toronto). The area in purple is new land that will be created as part of the process. Supposedly this is important for a few reasons. For one, it will allow the Cherry Street bridge to be relocated, which, in its current location, is creating a pinch point during floods.
I am mentioning all of this today because I am personally excited about this revitalization project. Hopefully I’ll see it complete in my lifetime. And maybe I’ll be fortunate enough to work on some of the buildings when that time comes. I also really wanted to share the below video with you all, showing the lakefilling in action. I bet many of you aren’t aware that this is happening.
If you can’t see the video below, click here.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0q_Wvn91zE?rel=0&w=560&h=315]
Below is a good discussion with Aaron Renn about how to brand a city. I fully agree with two of the points he makes: (1) Not enough cities are thinking holistically about this topic and (2) tech startups, bicycle lanes, and craft breweries aren’t going to cut it as a strategy. Every city is focusing on that sort of stuff these days. Zero differentiation. Find something germane to your city and start building on it. If you can’t see the embedded podcast below, click here.
[soundcloud url="https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/436104924" params="color=#ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false&show_teaser=true&visual=true" width="100%" height="300" iframe="true" /]
A condo developer friend of mine once told me something along the lines of this: “Brandon, I have generally learned over the years that if I like something, it probably means the general public [our purchasers] isn’t going to like it. And that’s because if I like it, there’s probably something unique or quirky about it.”
When he told me this it made perfect sense to me, because there’s a well documented taste divide that seems to exist between architects and design-types and non-architects and non-design-types (whatever this latter categorization means).
A few years ago The Architects’ Journal published an article referencing a 1987 study that took a group of students – some architecture students and some non-architecture students – and asked them to rate the attractiveness of a series of photos containing both unfamiliar people and buildings.
What they discovered was that most people had similar views on the attractiveness of the people. I guess hotness is somewhat universal. But when it came to the buildings, the viewpoints were completely opposite. The architecture students’ favorite buildings were what everyone else disliked the most.
The conclusion in the article: “Professionals are, empirically, the very worst judges available of what people want or like in the built environment.”
Photo by Simon Goetz on Unsplash
When he told me this it made perfect sense to me, because there’s a well documented taste divide that seems to exist between architects and design-types and non-architects and non-design-types (whatever this latter categorization means).
A few years ago The Architects’ Journal published an article referencing a 1987 study that took a group of students – some architecture students and some non-architecture students – and asked them to rate the attractiveness of a series of photos containing both unfamiliar people and buildings.
What they discovered was that most people had similar views on the attractiveness of the people. I guess hotness is somewhat universal. But when it came to the buildings, the viewpoints were completely opposite. The architecture students’ favorite buildings were what everyone else disliked the most.
The conclusion in the article: “Professionals are, empirically, the very worst judges available of what people want or like in the built environment.”
Photo by Simon Goetz on Unsplash
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog