P U B L I C . R E A L M . A D V O C A T E
Random Ramblings on Urban Design, Landscape Architecture, Architecture and City Building
I spend my life designing and building new streets. Streets just like this. When I see images like this it actually makes me ache. If we don’t help the people fleeing from this carnage then we have lost our way. Further…if we don’t find a way to stop this carnage, then we have no choice but to hang our heads in shame. And to be clear, it is not about the street. It is about those who inhabit it and bring it to life.
Old City Hall in Toronto is a building that has served as a Provincial court-house since the construction of New City Hall in the 60s. It is a classic example of Romanesque Revival architecture and at one time was the largest civic building on the continent. It is an iconic fixture of our public realm
In September the City adopted a staff report that confirmed they would not extend the Province’s lease beyond 2021. That same report authorized staff to release the reservation placed on some areas for future use as the Toronto Museum Project and to create publicly accessible space.
So clearly there is a move afoot to consider its use as a museum….of something.
At the same time, the report recommended that staff report back with final recommendations for a strategy for new tenants at Old City Hall which — of course — precludes any final decision on a Museum. Perhaps the plan is to use rental revenues to offset the cost of installing a museum.
Since September the City hired a Real Estate Consultant to advise them on the ‘highest and best use’ for Old City Hall. Their conclusion? Conversion to a retail centre that contains a mix of food service, leisure, event and civic uses and provides some encouragement for future office.
Old City Hall is located next door to the two biggest shopping malls in the City. The Eaton Centre and The Bay Store on Queen Street. So…retail? Really?
Clearly, the City’s real estate consultants responded to the terms of reference they were given. But I would argue that what the City needed was not a ‘highest and best use’ assessment, but rather a business case to justify keeping Old City Hall an entirely PUBLIC building and to do so at little or no net cost to the City. How do we strategically and financially justify its use as a public amenity now and in the future?
Old City Hall is an iconic building in an iconic location. Few citizens know that it is a court-house and a jail. But they know it as a public building. They know it as part of the architectural fabric of this city. Grand steps to the front doors and a monument to lost soldiers out front.; the backdrop of every Remembrance Day Ceremony. It contributes to the ‘look’ of our city as it sits as a visual anchor looking north from Bay Street. In many ways, it is the logo of the Toronto brand.
How does one keep the origins of this building intact, while facing the inevitability of change? How do we ensure that it’s ‘highest and best use’ is to keep it as a public building?
The City owns two premium properties in addition to Old City Hall; the Central Library on Yonge Street and the Toronto Archives on Spadina Road.
The Central Reference Library occupies half a city block and while in its day it was viewed as ‘cutting edge’ architecture, in fact it is a static building. Half of the floor plate is given up to a four story vaulted ceiling, and it offers little to nothing in the way of contributing to life on the street. It is a wall of brick. It fails to help animate our city in a way that should be demanded of all public buildings.
The Toronto Archives building is a small building that occupies a large site on Spadina . It is in a residential neighbourhood and the site would be better suited to high end residential development. It is also not a building that contributes in any meaningful way to the life of the street.
My business case is this:
Sell both the Central Reference Library and the City of Toronto Archives properties and use the significant proceeds to convert Old City Hall into the new City of Toronto Central Reference Library and City Archives. What could be more fitting than an old building housing old books? If there were a demand for a ‘museum’ at Old City Hall, then what better than to couple it with our city archives?
Bring in some limited retail that is synergistic with a library. The retail could generate revenue to help off-set operating costs.
A City such as ours has a multitude of moving parts: assets, liabilities, challenges and opportunities. The measure of our success is determined by our ability to move those parts and assets around in order to achieve our greatest opportunity and deal with our greatest challenges. Old City Hall is one of those challenges….and one of those opportunities.
When the new community Cornell was being planned in Markham, I was still with the city as Manager of Parks Planning and Urban Design. The original plan called for 18 stormwater management ponds sprinkled across the hundreds of acres of development land. I suggested (more like insisted), that the City would better benefit from having one major pond at the very south end of the lands next to the 407 which at the time was under construction. I argued that it would be easier to maintain, it would offer a chance at creating a viable recreational amenity and it would buffer the new community from the 407. It would also benefit from being physically connected to a large sugar bush that was to be protected and expanded.
Surprisingly, I won the argument.
Everything that you see in this photo was a Markham corn field 12 years ago. Everything.
I am pretty certain it is the largest storm water management pond in the country. (though I’m quite prepared to be corrected on this point).
I designed it in 2003 with Ecotech Engineering on behalf of H+R Developments, and the plan called for the construction of a series of interconnected pathways, overlooks and connecting municipal parks as well as the planting of over 2100 trees and 9000 shrubs, shoreline and emergent plants.
Most have thrived and new species such as Robinia pseudoacacia and numerous shoreline species have taken root. It is now habitat for fish, wood ducks, mallards, geese, cormorants (though I’m not happy about that) egrets and swans not to mention a plethora of mice, rabbits, fox, coy wolf and grouse.
Who says urban development always negatively impacts the environment? This project is a case study in the principle of environmental ‘net gains’.
There has been considerable debate in the papers and on-line recently about the success/failure of the new Queen’s Quay streetscape. It is generally loved by urbanists yet the average Joe finds it confusing and the police have now dubbed it the most dangerous street in the city.
The design essentially separates all modes of transit into dedicated rights-of-way. Two lanes of car traffic next to two dedicated trolly lines next to two dedicated bike lanes, next to a pedestrian zone closest to the lake.
I had a chance to walk it’s length last night and I’ll say this. It IS dangerous. But not how you would expect.
The biggest problem seems to be that there is little separation between pedestrians and cyclists. In some cases there are street furnishings like benches and street lights, but in many others there is little more than a paving band to announce to pedestrians that they are about to get clipped by Toronto’s wannabe Lance Armstrong.
The street was packed with pedestrians while cyclists, skate-boarders and skaters were zipping along in their lanes at very high speeds. The generally distracted and happy pedestrians often meandered into the bike lanes completely unaware that they were in danger. I saw several accidents averted by wits, citizenship and good luck.
There is a generally accepted principle that bicycle traffic should share the same passageway as cars. This is particularly true where the use of bicycles is promoted as a means of commuting. The problem here is that the bicycle traffic shares the passageway with pedestrians. So I think it is both a grade separation and a location issue.
Seems that a retrofit might be in order.+
UPDATE: As I was saying…………….
I have a few well known pet peeves. Perhaps the most common to interrupt my otherwise calm demeanor is my disdain for designers who invent new words to describe already well-established concepts. Makes me crazy. My sense is that it is done mostly to give one designer an upper hand over another. To make his thinking ‘cutting edge’ and ‘out in front of the trends’. Or even worse, to make his language THE trend. More often than not it is complete hooey.
Most recently, a new ‘up and comer’ used the term ‘amenitized’ to describe the process of arriving at an agreed upon program of uses for a new park. As in..”we must decide how we are going to amenitize this park”.
Well. No. We don’t. What we need to do is agree on a program of uses for the park.
“Program of uses” is a perfectly acceptable and widely used term to describe the stuff we’re going to put in the park. ‘Amenitization’ sounds like the interest bearing account that the park funds will sit in whilst we decide on how the park will be programmed.
Maybe I”m just getting old and becoming resistant to change. Let me know if you think this is the case and I will pack up my parallel rule and Staedtler blue pencils and head off into the wilderness in my canoe. Or better yet, put me on an ice-flow in a lawn chair..if there are any ice-flows left.
The most recent term to force me into considering re-tipping my canoe paddles with epoxy for the long solo trip into oblivion, is Biophylic Design.
The term Biophylia, was first used by psychologists to describe someone who has a highly measurable connection to nature and natural systems. Just like me! Whoohoo! I’m a biophylic!
The term has since been co-opted by a number of professionals and academics in planning and design to describe a human need for a connection with nature as well as an imperative for design professionals to satisfy that need.
Adherents of the ‘Biophilia’ movement see their job as influencing planning and design (particularly in an urban context) in such a way as to ensure that it responds to, and more closely reflects , nature and natural systems.
I have no problem with this idea. It is a mantra which I take into my work every day. It is the reason I am a Landscape Architect. I’m even writing a book about it. But please people….can we LOSE the term ‘Byophylic Design’?!!
In 1968, the famed Landscape Architect and Planner Ian McHarg, published his seminal work ‘Design With Nature’. It set out the principles and tools required to connect planning and design to nature, natural features and systems. That book is the grandfather of environmental assessments, coastal zoning regulations, flood plain regulations as well as the greening of urban places and the expansion of parks and open space systems world wide. One could also argue that his work was the genesis of sustainable development, LID (Low Impact Development), and urban green renewal policies that drive much of our discourse today.
I would argue that much of the progress we have made in the last 45 years is not only attributable to him, but to generations of students and practitioners in design who took his lead, refined his ideas and expanded his influence.
And so I would argue that Biophylic Design is NOT a new idea. It is little more than a new and unnecessary word used to describe an evolution in design that is already underway and has been for generations.
What Biophylic Design describes is integrated design. It describes the process whereby architects, engineers, planners, landscape architects and urban designers, give up their professional silo’s in favor of a collaborative design process underpinned by an environmental imperative.
The biophyliac’s of the world can project their ethic all they like, but at the end of the day, it will take an integrated approach to design to fulfill their dreams. We don’t need a new word to do that. We just need to get on with the work at hand.
I’m going to go patch the hull of my canoe now.
Paul
The acquisition and improvement of parkland is one of the first things municipal politicians will gravitate toward as a means of demonstrating that they are making a contribution to the enhancement of the lives of their constituents.
The ‘green stuff’ is a total vote getter. It is also my livelihood. And so I am extremely pleased that the on-line magazine ‘Spacing’ has started a very important conversation with its two part series on the provision of parks in Toronto. (see link above to part II) They have acquired very important information on the provision and distribution of parkland in the City of Toronto. Information, that the City probably didn’t even know it had, or if it did know, hadn’t yet aggregated into some semblance of usefulness.
Spacing points to a number of things that I know to be fact. Namely that:
The two part series also points to administrative short-comings that may have bearing on how and where parks cash-in-lieu money is spent.
The Spacing Series brings a number of key issues to light, but it also begs some important questions.
The answers to these questions are only to be found through the physical parks planning process. A process which is currently not only under-served by the City, but one that does not currently exist at the City in any defined capacity.
In 2012/13, the City published it’s Parks Plan 2013/2017. As a ‘Master Plan’ it laid out goals and objectives for the parks system in the City of Toronto. On its own, the plan is an excellent first step in re-aligning the planning, design and management of parks with the realities of a rapidly growing and diversifying population.
The report is derived from an assessment of current challenges and contextual forces, and speaks to the noble goals of ensuring:
It is not until the last chapter, that we see anything really that can help to address the concerns raised by ‘Spacing’. A Chapter called ‘Improve System Planning’. In this chapter, the City acknowledges every short-coming raised by Spacing and points to a priority to deal with the problems of parkland planning and acquisition. MOST importantly, it recommends the development of a 20-year Parks, Forestry and Recreation facilities plan to guide future investments in facility provision and land acquisition.
Implementation of this objective should, in my opinion be the first priority of the City of Toronto. And when they say ’20 year plan’, what I HOPE they are describing is a 20 year STRATEGIC PLAN. I hope they are describing:
To go to my earlier questions, my sense is that if we were to undertake this project we would find that not all neighbourhoods need to be served equally by either park size or park program offered. That not all neighbourhoods are created equally. That density does not always mean that more parkland ‘next door’ is the appropriate product of that density. My sense is that many of the concerns raised by Spacing would no longer be concerns.
At the very least, we would have a vision for our City. A plan of attack and a set of goals and objectives that diffuse political whimsy and set the City on the path to a stable, responsive and truly world class park and open space system.
I’m certain that the City also wants this. But they don’t have the tools. They don’t have the resources…and they don’t have the commitment from their political masters. This too has to change and change in a hurry…before the tail is left completely wagging the dog.
Paul
P U B L I C . R E A L M . A D V O C A T E 