Earlier this week, 5 design proposals were unveiled for Jack Layton Ferry Terminal & Harbour Square Park along Toronto’s waterfront. They are part of an international design competition being organized by Waterfront Toronto – the arm’s length agency in charge of revitalizing this city’s waterfront.
The first proposal – called Cloud Park – was submitted by Stoss Landscape Urbanism, nARCHITECTS, and ZAS Architects.
I really like how they integrated water features, pools, and hot tubs into the park and lake. Their proposal made me realize how great it would be to have these functions along the water. It has been done in many other cities around the world. And I think a hot tub could be a big draw during the winter.
The second proposal was submitted by Clement Blanchet Architecture, RVTR and Batlle i Roig.
The big ideas here are a grand staircase (”social carpet”) that runs in line with Bay Street and an elevated east-west platform that runs from York Street in the west all the way across the Yonge Street slip in the east.
When I first saw this proposal I thought it was by Rem Koolhaas (OMA) and I doubt I’m the only one with that feeling. That’s not a criticism though. I like the work of OMA. But I think that many Torontonians have an intrinsic aversion to things that are elevated near our waterfront. (We’re currently pontificating about whether we should tear down a portion of our elevated urban highway.)
That said, I think the connection over the Yonge Street slip is an important one. The larger opportunity with this project is to use it as a mechanism to better stitch together our waterfront. I hope we take advantage of that.
The third proposal – called Civic Canopy – is by Diller Scofidio+Renfro, architectsAlliance, and Hood Design.
This proposal immediately caught my eye. It’s one of the more sculptural designs and it reminds me of something you might find in Barcelona or Madrid. It also includes a beach (#10 on the site plan shown below).
The fourth proposal – called Harbour Landing – was submitted by KPMB Architects, West 8, and Greenberg Consultants.
It consists of an undulating green roof terminal building and a more natural surrounding at the foot of Bay Street.
Finally, the fifth proposal was submitted by Quadrangle Architects, aLL Design (Will Alsop), and Janet Rosenberg & Studio.
This proposal consists of a hot pink terminal building running east-west along the water (shown above) and many other features that will strike you as being quintessentially Will Alsop.
My favorite part of this proposal though is the patterning of the surrounding urban park and the pool located towards the bottom left of the site plan shown below. Can you tell that I would really like to see usable water features along the lake?
When I first set out to write this post I was determined to pick one design to recommend. And if I were asked to do that I would pick Civic Canopy by Diller Scofidio+Renfro, architectsAlliance, and Hood Design.
However, as I was going through the designs, I instead found myself taking from all of the proposals and mentally accumulating a list of things that I would love to see happen on this site.
Connections to the surrounding area (such as across the Yonge Street slip)
Usable water features along and in the lake (pools, hot tubs, fountains, and so on)
An iconic terminal building that you can see when you’re out in the lake and on the Toronto Islands
Urban spaces that could be truly used and programmed in all seasons
Do you have a favorite proposal? What are the most important design elements in your opinion?
Images via Waterfront Toronto
A few days ago I wrote a post talking about what happens when you demolish an urban highway. It was a link to an article giving 5 examples of cities that have removed their urban highways and benefited.
After I wrote the post, a number of people responded on Twitter. Some thought it was a great idea and gave examples of other cities, such as Detroit, that are thinking about doing the same. But others responded and said that I was out of line. And that while it might work in some cities, it simply isn’t a viable option in cities like Toronto.
So as somebody who believes we should be taking down the Gardiner Expressway, I thought it would be worthwhile to revisit the topic and provide a bit more information.
To be clear, I’m not suggesting we remove the Gardiner and replace it with nothing. My belief is that we should replace it with a broad surface street that would still move lots of cars, but that would make our waterfront much more open and accessible to everyone.
So how is this feasible?
Again it comes back to the concept of induced demand. Back in 2009, two economists from the University of Toronto and University of Pennsylvania – which are actually both of my alma maters – published a study called The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion.
In it they discovered something really fascinating: there’s a near perfect relationship between new roads and highways built and the total number of miles driven. In other words, as cities increased road capacities (during their study period of 1980 to 2000), the amount of driving went up just as much.
What this should tell you is that trying to build your way of out road congestion is usually a losing proposition. That’s why every large city has a traffic problem. Try and think of one that has solved this. And as much as it might seem intuitive to tell people at cocktail parties that your city simply needs to build more roads and highways, it’s typically not that simple. (In my view, the solution is road pricing.)
The other really interesting thing that this study revealed is that it works both ways. When you reduce road capacity, drivers start to disappear. People choose to live closer to where they work. People choose transit. People go into the office at different times. People make all sorts of different decisions in response to this road change, just as they do when there are more free roads available to them.
So within a reasonable band (obviously you can’t remove all roads), there is no perfect amount of road capacity. If you added another lane to your highway, it would be full. If you took away a lane, it would end up equally full. That’s why removing the Gardiner Expressway isn’t lunacy.
Instead, it actually makes a lot of sense:
It’s the cheapest solution (compared to repairing it or burying it)
It would free up money for transit and other mobility solutions
It would make our waterfront more open and accessible
It would beautify our downtown
It would increase land values all along the waterfront
And since we’re still in the early days of developing our eastern waterfront, now is the time to do it. The longer we wait, the harder it’ll get and the more expensive it’ll get.
So I hope that the leaders in this city will think long and hard about this as opposed to immediately assuming we need an elevated highway to keep this city moving. The last time I checked, it doesn’t work so well in its current state.
Images: Before and After the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco (via Gizmodo)
Sometimes I like to start my mornings off by grabbing a coffee and walking down Jarvis Street to Sugar Beach and the lake.
I’ll find a Muskoka chair (Adirondack chair for you Americans) and position it underneath one of the iconic pink umbrellas. I mostly like to look out at the lake, but I also like the shade so that I can see the screen on my phone in case my Type A tendencies kick in and I want to check emails or mess around on Twitter.
Oftentimes when I’m there–even early in the morning–there will already be other people at the beach. One time I came at 730am and a lady was there tanning in a bikini. I admired her dedication.
Sometimes I need these moments. I like that sobering feeling you get when you take a time out from the everyday to just sit and think. It helps put things into perspective. And you could argue that great cities provide those kinds of spaces.
But how valuable are those spaces? Can you put a price tag on it? Is it worth $1M? How about $14.1M, including $12,000 for each pink umbrella?
Image: blogTO