Speaking of Voting…

The federal election is behind us. It’s time to get to the polls for the 7^th Annual PUG AWARDS!

The PUG AWARDS are a wonderful means by which the general public can voice their opinions about the design of our city. Each year, newly built architectural projects throughout the city of Toronto are open to judgment, holding those responsible for the projects accountable for their designs (whether they be deemed brilliant or disastrous).  

Cast your ballot for each of the 30 buildings, deciding whether you “love”, “like”, or “hate” each project here:

http://www.pugawards.com/pug/

Urban Infra-structure



by Astra Burka,  OAA

Architect and Filmmaker

“The aim of urbanism is comprehensibility, i.e. clarity of organization. The community is by definition a comprehensible thing. And comprehensibility should also be a characteristic of the parts.”

- CIAM  9, Aix-en-Provence, 1953. A/P.S. 1954, “team 10 primer”, edited by Allison S Smithson, November 1974. (Congrès internationaux d'architecture moderne – International Congresses of Modern Architecture)

   



I was just browsing through the “team 10 primer” and found the quote discussing urban infra-structure. The words “comprehensibility”, “clarity of organization” and “characteristics of the parts” seemed very CLEAR to me.

I spoke with Blanche van Ginkel(formerly Lemco) who along with her husband Sandy were invited participants to the Team Meetings in the 1950’s. Blanche asked me what I was writing about. I said that I was writing for the AFHTO Blog about urban infra-structure. I explained that I was taking some photos of College Street to illustrate the results of chaotic planning compared with logical and comprehensible planning in Holland and France.

Blanche explained that Dutch town planning, whose basic roots started in the 17^th century, still exists today. City plans derived from regional plans. The draining of the land created cities. The “old” Amsterdam is a series of islands surrounded by canals. Why can we not think like this? Is it because we have the luxury of too much space versus Holland that has no space?

   

Toronto has this obsession of producing community plans and street studies ad nauseam. How can we plan a street or a community when we do not have a plan for the city or know what is the larger picture? The examples shown of College Street illustrate the lack of consistency in creating urban infra-structure. We have over 14 jurisdictions involved with the space between buildings and it seems that no one is planning on the same page.

Maybe this is the Canadian way of planning, starting with the micro vision to confuse us and then create so many rules and bylaws that it becomes like the Wild West with everyone out for themselves.

Are we afraid to create a vision? Or are we afraid to rock the boat? Why can’t we be creative and plan our futures in a comprehensive way?

Anyway, I am ranting again.  My belief is you can plan clear ideas. So why is it not happening?

The New UNREADABLE Zoning Bylaw has Landed in Toronto

by Astra Burka, OAA

Finally after 8 years, hours of work, lots of staff, consultants and money, the harmonized zoning bylaw is here. We need a demo reel or a course to understand it, but alas the city forgot to do this.

Instead of taking the opportunity to create a new and simplified approach on how we create our city form, the amalgamated zoning has become a convoluted monster document that experts have to be hired to decipher it.

Rumour has it, that the preliminary planning review report on a submitted “structure” reads like a novel and is so elaborate that planners, lawyers and experts cannot even understand it. What about the design community? And what about the ordinary citizen who wants to add a porch or deck to their house?  It now takes 6 months, instead of the 1 to 3 months for a Committee of Adjustment approval.

How did we get here?

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/bylaws/2010

Architectural Politics...a losing battle

http://themes.thestar.com/article/09aUdsYcYF0xW?q=steve+peters

Sherbourne Commons: An Unfinished Gem?

By Kawai Lam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHAo9RhDCP4&feature=player_embedded

 

Bike Rings, Sherbourne Commons

Open Park Area, Sherbourne Commons

On September 24th the latest project of the often referred to as long planned and even longer incubating waterfront revitalization was officially unveiled, at least partially. Located at the foot of Lower Sherbourne Street and Queens Quay East, the southern half of the recently dubbed Sherbourne Commons (a title awarded after a public naming contest with over 500 entries) officially opened to the public. When both halves are completed the 1.5 hectare narrow park will stretch from Lake Shore Boulevard to the water’s edge, neatly divided in half by the Queens Quay. It will add to the growing amenities, life, and destination potential, of the East Bayfront neighbourhood (considering it now mostly consists of abandoned industrial infrastructure). Recent other nearby Waterfront Toronto projects that have raised the profile of the area are the massive Corus Entertainment complex and the adjacent fully integrated and delightful public urban space, Sugar beach (both previously reviewed on this blog). Another much anticipated project planned for completion in fall 2011 and sitting directly to the east between the Corus complex and Sherbourne Commons, will be the new George Brown Health Sciences centre.

On an unfortunately overcast and lightly raining drab day, I made the trek to the still fairly inaccessible Port Lands area to take in Sherbourne Common South. It was indeed “completed” except for the main water feature: the pond/skating rink that will be the centerpiece of the park, which was still fenced off and clearly in progress. The rest of the park was regrettably at first glance bland. It consisted of a long rectangular area of plain green grass, still visibly freshly unrolled and camped upon by a flock of Canadian geese, and a wide paved walkway down the west side with pleasantly stylish and modern streetlights, benches, and bike parking rings. All of the details in the park furniture were sophisticated and polished, but beyond that there was much disappointment and not very much to the park except for grass, which is admittedly an odd complaint. Perhaps the rain and grey skies detracted from the park’s natural charm.