TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Canada - Toronto & Southern Ont.
-- Toronto's waterfront - Something happening soon after all??
Toronto's waterfront - Something happening soon after all??
Here Jay, this ones for you...
Seems something might start happening soon after all...
| quote: |
| Mar. 14, 2005. 06:21 AM Finally, sanity comes to lakefront CHRISTOPHER HUME Until now, good news and the Toronto waterfront have had little to do with one another. That all changed last Friday when the Waterfront Design Review Panel was announced. To make the good news even better, leading Toronto architect Bruce Kuwabara will chair the panel. The job of the new body is to advise the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. (TWRC) on matters relating to development. That means for the first time in this city's history, there will be an expert board whose task is to comment on the quality of architectural and design projects before they're constructed. As it stands, the Planning Act specifically states that no application can be refused on the basis that it's dead ugly. Though the legislation hasn't changed, the design review panel will be commenting on proposals that will be built on land that's 80 per cent publicly owned. That means its advice will be taken seriously. The board will include six architects, two landscape architects, a planner and an engineer, all volunteers appointed for a specific term. There should have been more landscape architects, but at this point, who's going to quibble? "I accepted because I believe it's time to do something," Kuwabara says. "I take this very seriously. I only want members who know the difference between what's good, very good and excellent. There will be tremendous pressure on the first waterfront building. It will send a huge message." Kuwabara hopes to have the panel in place within four to six weeks. It will meet, he says, every six to eight weeks. The timing couldn't be better. For good reason, there's growing concern about the poor quality of architecture and urban design in Toronto. Developers, especially those who build condos, have shown over and over again they are content to settle for mediocrity. The city has reached a point where it has a critical mass of second- and third-rate architecture. If the development industry is allowed to take a business-as-usual approach to building the waterfront, Toronto doesn't stand a chance. And the importance of the waterfront to the future of Toronto cannot be over-estimated. The waterfront is Toronto's chance to make up for the mistakes of post-war planning. It is our best opportunity to bring the city into the 21st century, to prove to ourselves and the world that we are capable of more than mediocrity. The problem with the Toronto planning process, of course, is that it ends up at city council. Kuwabara and his panel report to the waterfront corporation, and it then advises council. And municipal politicians have proved their pettiness many times; very few have the city's best interests at heart. According to former Toronto planning commissioner Robert Millward, however, "architects will suck it up and try to do better. The design review panel will raise the bar." In the meantime, the issue of TWRC governance remains unresolved. Despite that, the Ontario Realty Corp. has been told to co-operate and even the (federal) Toronto Port Authority seems to be on side. It's time now for Mayor David Miller to rein in TEDCO (Toronto Economic Development Corp.) and let the waterfront corporation get on with its job. Slowly but surely, the pieces are falling into place. John Campbell, waterfront corporation president and CEO, insists shovels will be in the ground by this fall. The West Don Lands and East Bayfront precinct plans will go to city council in the spring and the design panel will start reviewing proposals after that. The habit of skepticism is deeply ingrained in Toronto, and it's not hard to understand why. But finally there's reason for optimism, and of all places, on the waterfront. The next step will be to appoint a design review panel for the rest of the city |
| quote: |
Slowly but surely, the pieces are falling into place. John Campbell, waterfront corporation president and CEO, insists shovels will be in the ground by this fall. The West Don Lands and East Bayfront precinct plans will go to city council in the spring and the design panel will start reviewing proposals after that. The habit of skepticism is deeply ingrained in Toronto, and it's not hard to understand why. But finally there's reason for optimism, and of all places, on the waterfront. |
they'd better hurry before people finally stop caring altogether ..
i'll believe it when i see it!
This is fantastic news. I've heard this in the rumour mill for the past 3 months and now I'm glad to see that its come to the public view.
This is definitely a step in the right direction to ensuring a world class waterfront
| quote: |
What's wrong with us? Stockholm turned around its waterfront in a few years. All we can do is talk about it. Sep. 16, 2006. 01:00 AM CHRISTOPHER HUME STOCKHOLM�To wander through this city's newly rebuilt waterfront is to have a glimpse of what Toronto could be. This new neighbourhood, Hammersby Sjostad (City on the Water) is energy self-sufficient, environmental, architecturally diverse, connected, vibrant and exactly where we should be headed in the years ahead. Whether or not we'll get there remains to be seen, but so far the signs are bad; lack of political leadership and an entrenched bureaucracy will make it extremely difficult. Still, there's much to learn from Stockholm, a city of 1.5 million built on an archipelago of 14 islands. Certainly, the physical resemblance between the two waterfronts is striking. Both were once industrial harbours that fell into disuse. Both are also close to the heart of the city, easily reachable by public transit. The big difference lies in the attitudes each city brings to the project. Planning in Stockholm began in 1990 and construction is well underway. Already 7,500 people live in these new areas. By 2015, when complete, there will be up to 25,000 residents and 10,000 workers. "The key is integrated planning," explains Erik Freudentahl of the Hammersby communications department. "Our objective was to lower the environmental impact by one half. We built our own wastewater plant and district heating, which services 80,000 homes. Combustible waste from the area is recycled as heat and organic waste is used to produce biogas." There are also solar panels on buildings to heat water, a new streetcar line, an Envac underground garbage collection system and high-efficiency fridges, stoves and dishwashers. Though public participation is needed, 80 per cent of the environmental measures are incorporated into buildings; the rest is up to residents. Hammersby itself is largely mid-rise, between four and 10 storeys, though there are taller buildings. Most remarkable, perhaps, is the variety of the architecture; that monolithic look of the mega-project has been avoided. Beyond that, the quality of the architecture is extraordinarily high. Not that every structure ranks as a masterpiece, but there's a marvellous sense of consistency and coherence. Despite having been constructed in a short period � about five years � the community also feels organic and diverse. Smaller streets are organized around a series of canals that reach inland from the water. The main artery, along which streetcars run, is lined with commercial buildings, tall but not skyscrapers. Though densities are relatively high, about the same as those called for on the Toronto waterfront, the layout is generous, with plenty of green space, water features and views. Toronto could be `a world leader; really, really fantastic, beyond anything we have done here at Hammersby' Prof. Ulf Ranhagen, Technical University of Lulea The relationship to the water's edge is at a neighbourhood scale; there are promenades and bicycle paths � lots of bicycle paths � but some buildings reach right to the shore. It's also pedestrian oriented, distances are walkable, pleasant and everything is accessible. To reduce car use, planners initially decided it would be enough to provide 0.3 parking spots per living unit. Turned out that wasn't enough, so it was increased to 0.67, mostly underground. At the same time, however, 10 per cent of residents now belong to a car share program that rents out 28 vehicles.These are precisely the kinds of things Toronto waterfront planners have dreamt about for years. So far, to little avail. Interesting, too, that the redevelopment of the harbour lands has been organized by the Stockholm planning department, not an agency such as the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. Of course, the three levels of government in Sweden, unlike those in Canada, tend to take a co-operative rather than a confrontational approach. The city covered the costs of infrastructure � transit, bridges, pipes, parks and soil decontamination � but private developers did the rest. "Before they start to build," Freudentahl says, "developers have to put down in writing their plans for the environment, health and resources and present them to the city." What makes the scheme feasible is the increase in land values prompted by redevelopment. In other words, it becomes a self-sustaining venture, one from which all players, from residents to developers, profit. But what are the chances of adapting the so-called Hammersby model to Toronto? According to Prof. Ulf Ranhagen of the Technical University of Lulea, they are excellent. Ranhagen, who prepared a study for the Toronto waterfront corp., insists that Toronto could be "a world leader; really, really fantastic, beyond anything we have done here at Hammersby." To get there, he argues, "Toronto needs to bury the Gardiner Expressway and the railway tracks in parallel tunnels, because the links between the city and the waterfront are absolutely critical. "The buildings need to be sustainable and energy efficient. The best approach is to start with the smaller components and make sure you get them right." The rest will follow, he says. But first you have to start. |
when we do get waterfront development i predict it will end up being nothing but halhazardly built unimpressive condos and big box stores. Sad but true.
Vision, creativity and passion left toronto in the 70s. We will never see another cn tower, city hall, or great modern projects of the like at the rate we are going. Look at the new opera centre. What a waste of space that place is! Can anyone tell the difference between it and a low rise condo? I cant
That is good news! I hope they get their act together and change the waterfront. I have seen TWRC plans for the area between Jarvis and Parliament. Looks like there will be a lot of public green. The only thing is that I will miss the Guv as on that corner they are planning a residential building. 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by endless_summer That is good news! I hope they get their act together and change the waterfront. I have seen TWRC plans for the area between Jarvis and Parliament. Looks like there will be a lot of public green. The only thing is that I will miss the Guv as on that corner they are planning a residential building. |
The federal gov't owns the port lands.
The Corporation of the City of Toronto can have as many panels or review boards or development groups as they want - but until Ottawa hands over the port lands - nothing can move forward.
The port lands are key, yes. But more important than that step is the first step ...to have someone with vision, who understands what beauty can achieve & what achievements can bring forth beauty, in this I think Kuwabara can succeed. I do have my reservations, true, but at least in a short time there will actually be a vision being formed, b/c w/out a plan there's no point to any of this.
quote:
Waterfront Corp. adrift again
Sep. 27, 2006. 05:44 AM
KERRY GILLESPIE
QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU
The corporation given the task of turning Toronto's derelict waterfront into vibrant neighbourhoods and public parks is in turmoil � again � because of political squabbling.
The Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. has been without a permanent chair since May and the acting chair is stepping down at the next board meeting in two weeks.
The city, Queen's Park and Ottawa, which jointly fund the corporation and appoint its board members, were supposed to agree on a new chair in time for city council to give its approval at this week's meeting.
They couldn't.
Sources tell the Toronto Star it was between two names: Dino Chiesa, who is involved in the real estate business, social housing and is the chair of the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp.; and James Villeneuve, an executive with Labatt, former chair of the Toronto Economic Development Corp. and heavily involved in the city's failed 2008 Olympic bid.
But federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty threw a wrench in the works by overriding MP John Baird, the federal minister responsible for the waterfront, and picking a third name, sources say.
"Flaherty has been a thorn in the side of everybody's ambitions in this project from the get-go. Baird's been great," the source said.
David Caplan, the provincial minister responsible for the waterfront, said yesterday he was "disappointed" a chair couldn't be picked.
Mayor David Miller was unavailable for comment and Flaherty and Baird could not be reached.
Not having a permanent chair or even a firm plan on when one will be picked is just the latest problem to face the corporation, which has long been plagued by political squabbling between the three levels of government.
"On something as important as the future of the city of Toronto's waterfront, it's disastrous," a source said about not having someone to lead the multi-billion-dollar, 25-year project.
In 2001, the city, Queen's Park and Ottawa committed $1.5 billion to revitalize the city's waterfront. But there's been little action.
Waterfront insiders are concerned that leaving the corporation rudderless will just add to public cynicism.
The board has been without a permanent chair since Robert Fung was suddenly let go in May, when his term expired. There wasn't even a short list of candidates to replace him.
The board was forced to have an emergency meeting to pick one of its members, developer and GO Transit chair Peter Smith, to become the acting chair.
After five months Smith said he's just too busy to continue doing it. "I'm not wanting to leave (as acting chair) because I'm upset. The waterfront has done great work over the last little while," Smith said.
If the politicians can agree on a name before the next waterfront board meeting on Oct. 12, the federal government, which has two empty board seats, can appoint that person, Smith said.
That person could become interim chair until December, the earliest city council can approve the name to make them the permanent chair, Smith said. If this doesn't happen, the board will have to try to pick another of its members to take on a temporary role, he said.
Some insiders are worried Miller will push to be made an acting co-chair.
In November 2004, Miller pushed to be made chair, saying he'd have shovels in the ground within a year. Queen's Park and Ottawa refused, saying it would give the city an unfair advantage over a corporation that is supposed to have equal representation from all levels of government. They did, however, allow him to take one of the city's four seats on the board.
source:
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ol=969483202845
whatever happens i just hope they arent foolish enough to turn the gardiner expwy into a boulevard with stop lights. That will just kill traffic even more
check out this proposal. quite interesting.
http://www.toviaduct.com/Home.html
WOW!!!!
this is an AMAZING idea. But somehow i doubt that it will happen. People here arent that forward thinking. And surely the people living near the rail tracks would bitch about it.
BUT WHAT AN AMAZING CONCEPT! If i were in charge this would probably get built.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by smuncky check out this proposal. quite interesting. http://www.toviaduct.com/Home.html |
oh i agree with you guys. it will never be built in our lifetime. hopefully though, someday.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by smuncky check out this proposal. quite interesting. http://www.toviaduct.com/Home.html |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Jayx1 when we do get waterfront development i predict it will end up being nothing but halhazardly built unimpressive condos and big box stores. Sad but true. Vision, creativity and passion left toronto in the 70s. We will never see another cn tower, city hall, or great modern projects of the like at the rate we are going. Look at the new opera centre. What a waste of space that place is! Can anyone tell the difference between it and a low rise condo? I cant |
wow i'll admit that definately is a brilliant idea that they're proposing .. and would likely be constructed in a far shorter time than doing something like tunnelling not to mention the limited disruption it would provide.
def. take this opportunity during the Nov. election to raise this idea with your local city councillors.. it def. deserves more media attention as a viable alternative!
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.