ARCH551_Nathan Philps Square Analysis by S Kulkarni

ARCH 551 - URBAN DESIGN AND PLANNING Winter 2018

Assignment 3 Critical analysis of a current city building project

Nathan Phillips Square Revitalisation, Toronto Narges Nasr Esfahani & Sumeet Kulkarni

UDH 2017-18

PROJECT CREDITS PROJECT: Nathan Phillips Square Revitalisation, Downtown Toronto, ON CLIENT: City of Toronto AREA: 4.85 Hectares; 13 Acres ORIGINAL COMPETITON (1956): Architect Viljo Revell with Landscape Architect Richard Strong, COMPETITION DESIGN TEAM (2005): PLANT Architect Inc., Shore Tilbe Irwin & Partners/Perkins+Will, Inc., Hoerr Schaudt Landscape Architecture, Adrian Blackwell Urban Projects BUDGET OF REVITALISATION PROJECT: Estimated C$45 million (Actual C$ 60 million) ARCHITECTS: PLANT Architect Inc. | Perkins+Will, Architects in Joint Venture INTERIORS: Perkins+Will, Inc. STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS: Blackwell Bowick Engineering MECHANICAL / ELECTRICAL: Crossey Engineering Ltd. CONTRACTORS: Phase 1A: Flynn Canada/Gardens in the Sky; Phase 1 & 2: PCL Constructors Canada; Phase 3: Four Seasons Site Development COMPLETION: 2009-2015 AWARDS: National Urban Design Awards - Civic Design Projects (April 2016)

Governor Generalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Medal in Architecture (May 2016)

INTRODUCTION Nathan Phillips Square (NPS) is an urban plaza in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It forms the forecourt to Toronto City Hall, or New City Hall, at the intersection of Queen Street West and Bay Street, and is named for Nathan Phillips, mayor of Toronto from 1955 to 1962. Since its grand opening in 1965, it has served as Toronto’s major public and community convention place, a leading tourist attraction, and a national and provincial landmark. NPS serves as a site for concerts, art displays, a weekly farmers’ market, the winter festival of lights, and other public events, including demonstrations with 1.5 million visitors attending them annually. During the winter months, the reflecting pool converts into an Ice skating rink but what forms its most iconic addition, is the ‘Toronto’ glow sign which forms a signature backdrop for the photographs taken there.

PROJECT INCEPTION AND COMPETITION OF TOWN HALL AND CIVIC SQUARE, 1957 In the years following the Second World War, Toronto politicians developed the idea of creating a civic space next to E.J. Lennox’s 1899 City Hall, a grand Romanesque structure which was fast outgrowing municipal bureaucracy and was in need for expansion. In 1946, the City Council froze zoning and land uses on a large block northwest of Queen and Bay and embarked on a process of buying out small landowners in an unsightly immigrant arrival area known as the Ward (and later as Chinatown). By the early 1950s, as the automobile became the center of urban life and much of the land was cleared for Parking lots. The agglomerated aforesaid land, intended to cater to Parking, was offered by Municipal officials as a site for a new Toronto City Hall. After the land was assigned for Civic or Institutional use, three local architectural firms led by Mathers and Haldenby were asked to put forth a design proposal. Upon being unveiled, their staid design was widely ridiculed, far beyond the limits of Toronto. As Christopher Armstrong, a Professor of History, states in his account - no less than Frank Lloyd Wright dismissed the plan as a ‘cliche´, while Walter Gropius, father of the Bauhaus movement, called it a ‘very poor pseudo-modern design unworthy of the city of Toronto’ (Lorinc, 2016). Such widespread criticism of the proposal resulted in the city rejecting it. Tensions reportedly ran high between the ambitions of local politicians, planners and architects who promoted the idea of an international competition and those who parochially resisted what was perceived as radical change (Economides, 2015). In September 1957, in search of a more meaningful design, the City of Toronto launched an international two-stage design competition, promoted by Toronto’s first Jewish mayor Nathan Phillips and administered by a visionary professor of architecture, Eric Armstrong. The brief was to propose a new City Hall and civic square and the competitors were exhorted to create an ‘atmosphere’ suggesting ‘government, democracy and community’. In addition to the word ‘dignity’, these three words continue to be associated with the Square even today. (Fournier et al., 2005) 3

Figure 01: 1918 Image of future site of Nathan Phillips Square Figure 02: Image of Nathan Phillips development after with the old Town Hall in the background opening day. ImageCredit: Arthur James. https://s3-ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/ Image Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BayandAlbert.jpg

cdnarchitect/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/TO-CH-8.jpg

Accessed April 2018

Figure 03: Cover of The Canadian Architect from April 1959. Figure 04: Viljo Revellâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s competition-winning design The issue discussed the winning design along with many other for Toronto City Hall and Square marked a key moment entries in the competition. for Canadian architecture, with impacts that resonated globally. ImageCredit: Panda Photography, design by F. F. P. Moore.https://s3-ca-cen-

Image Reference: https://s3-ca-central-1.amazonaws.com/cdnarchi-

tral-1.amazonaws.com/cdnarchitect/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/TO-CH.

tect/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/TO-CH-2b.jpg Accessed April

jpg Accessed April 2018

2018

In April 1958, a distinguished jury of internationally renowned architects selected eight finalists from 509 submissions, received from 42 countries (McMordie, 2017). In September, after a second round of shortlisting the entries, the jury selected the design of the Finnish architect, Viljo Revell as the winner. His scheme, was ‘instantly iconic, a modernist masterpiece, the curved twin tower concept that emerged from a high-minded international design competition’(Lorinc, 2016). It was conceived as a civic square, or agora, at the scale of the city and juxtaposed an enormous void with the City Hall’s iconic council chamber. His winning proposal was distinguished owing to its four main components: The Civic Square, with its pool, positioned to reflect both the Old and New City Halls; the Podium, whose roof forms an upper plaza overlooking the square; a circular Council Chamber at the center of two curvilinear Tower forms. The story of how this civic complex was realized offers a revealing glimpse into the socio-cultural and urban character of Toronto during the postwar years of its metropolitanisation (Economides, 2015). Although NPS remains amongst the most significant public places in 20th Century Toronto, due to budget cuts at the time of its construction, it was never fully realized. As health concerns kept the Architect away, the City of Toronto made changes to some project components as it was significantly over budget and plagued with construction issues. Value engineering efforts resulted in a reduction of the pool size, increase in vegetation area (to reduce paving), replacement of the Entry pavilion with a smaller scale Skating pavilion, reduction in number of arches over the pool to three numbers, cancellation of the Restaurant proposed on the podium and deferment of the elevated walkways along Queen street.

NEED FOR REVITALISATION PROJECT IN 2007 Subsequently, over a half-century of use, NPS gradually became cluttered, derelict, and and unable to adapt to evolving civic space usage patterns. An innovative design competition was launched in the start of October 2006, soliciting proposals from forty-eight local and international firms for a revitalization of the square. On March 8, 2007, it was announced that the team led by PLANT Architect Inc. and Shore Tilbe Irwin + Partners (later acquired by Perkins + Will) had won the competition. The winning design paid homage to the twin symbols of democracy in Greek Architecture represented by Levell’s original design – the Agora (a square or an open forum) and a theatre; an ancient Athenian space of public and political exchange. The new design also claimed the dual functions of a theatre (a place of focused gathering) and a square. The new proposal was a convincing mix of repair, revision and new construction that emphasised the historical mission and sense they had identified in the square. The competition documents attractively blended respect for City Hall’s svelte Mid-Century Modern fabric with sound plans for the refreshment of Revell’s Canadian version of “the hard-paved, big European piazza (Mays, 2015).” The PLANT Architect website ambitiously states the goals of their design thus: “(It) … strategically rethinks this 13-acre heritage site to transform it into exemplary 21st-century public space. Through the redesign or relocation of existing elements and a new series of buildings and gardens framing the open plaza, the Revitalization enhances NPS’s functionality, versatility, and appeal while augmenting its ‘con5

Figure 05: Location of Nathan Philips Square, Downtown Toronto Image Credit: Google 2018. Accessed April 2018

Figure 06: Nathan Phillips Square Revitalisation - Layout Plan Image Credit: Plant Architects & P+W. Sourced from: https://cdnarchitect.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Screen-Shot-2016-05-18-at-4.01.04-PM.png

nectedness’ to its surroundings”. The success of the winning proposal lay in the fact that it connected the Square both, outward to the city as well as inward, to its central void. The landscaping and seating of a new forecourt, does not just cater to the Square, but also creates an inviting threshold towards the South, created by a new Bus Park layby included in the proposal. Once criticized for being like a glorified ‘gravel patch’ (Pagliaro, 2016), the site now hosts Toronto’s largest publicly accessible green roof an City Hall’s podium. The three-acre, upper-level Podium roof garden of the 1965 iconic City Hall was originally conceived as a public ceremonial space and made accessible by a giant sculptural ramp. In actual use, this terrace space proved to be a grim, paved void, remaining closed to the public for over a decade. After the construction was underway , the Podium Roof Garden was the first Phase to be completed as a part of the NPS Revitalisation efforts and the present design transformed it into the largest publicly accessible green roof garden in Canada. It serves as the textbook green roof project for the City of Toronto, and has been recognised as a leading example of the city’s award-winning Green Roof By-Law (Anonymous, 2016). In a bid to underscore the character of its central area as a space of pure potential for varied interactions and events, the Peace Garden which was added to the square’s centre in 1983, was relocated to the periphery of the project - freeing up the main gathering space for large events. The new Peace Garden’s terraced, planter-incorporating seating was an architectural form that concealed and acoustically tempered the underground parking garage’s exhaust duct. The square’s perimeter, marked out for special attention in the proposal, would be strengthened by the addition of many new forest trees and by structures to be linked by Revell’s elevated walkway, which would be resurfaced, furnished and landscaped. The list of these peripheral buildings included a new Restaurant, an Information kiosk, a permanent stage and a new Skating and snack pavilion. The roof of the podium at the foot of Revell’s curved office towers, until then a desolate expanse of asphalt and precast concrete pavers, was slated to become a public park above the streets (Mays, 2015). Sustainable design elements were also included to conform to Toronto’s Green Development Standard, including a soil regeneration strategy, improved tree planting conditions, and increased biomass and number of trees; facilities for cyclists and the promotion of cycling; an improved pedestrian environment; the control of light pollution; energy efficient design; a cistern that captures rainwater for irrigation; renewable energy features; opportunities for public education; attention to the on-site microclimate; and local sourcing of materials. As a testimony of the projects commitment to sustainability, the project aimed to achieve LEED Gold certification. Following LEED requirements, the project included a CAD$1.2 million cycle station with storage for 380 bicycles and shower facilities. After cancelling it initially, the Toronto City Council revived the cycle storage project, with an aim of being the largest bicycle storage facility in North America. In May 2016, NPS won RAIC Governor General’s Medal. In its comments (Anonymous, 2016) , the jury noted that although it was always the symbolic center of the city, NPS was left empty or littered with temporary structures in the recent past and the courageous renovation and reprogramming of the square now makes it one of most sought after public spaces in Toronto.

Figure 07: Aerial view of the project showing project components Image Credit: PLANT Architects. http://landezine-award.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/05/Image01_NPS-Overall-Site-Plan-1024x777.jpg Accessed 20 April 2018

Figure 08: Open Square with fountains (Rendering)

Figure 09: Skate Pavilion (Rendering)

Image Credit: http://www.branchplant.com/images/landscape/npspai_ Image Credit: http://www.branchplant.com/images/landscape/npspai_ fountain_6.jpg Accessed 20 April 2018

skatepavilion_6.jpg Accessed 20 April 2018

EXECUTION PHASES AND A CORROSIVE POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT Considering the competition for the revitalisation of NPS took place in 2007, when David Miller was the Mayor of Toronto, it is safe to say that he posed no outright objection to the Project. Yet, Rob Ford, his successor from 2010 to 2014, vociferously objected to it, calling it ‘a wasteful and unnecessary extravagance’ (Mays, 2015). The current Mayor, John Tory too has ‘lambasted the scheme for its tardiness and especially its cost, which has risen from an original estimate of around $40 million to its present level of $60 million’(Mays, 2015). Rather than focus on the merits of the design in terms of urban design or architecture, the spotlight of the media has always remained on negative coverage relating to budget and construction issues. As Jack Landau of the architectural website UrbanToronto.ca stated, (the quality of) architecture is not as publicized as delays and cuts, which usually make the headlines (Mays, 2015). Needless to say, although the project kept moving on, the hostile political environment led to delays in the project – specifically between 2010 to 2014. In 2015, the Project was deemed to be complete, just in time to host the Pan Am Games.

RELATION TO URBAN DESIGN THEORY AND CITY BUILDING APPROACHES It is worth questioning what contributes to the ‘sense of place’ of NPS? What makes people come back to this ‘destination? Krieger (2009) defines Urban Design as an art of ‘Placemaking’ as ‘the provision of distinctive, lively appealing centres to alleviate the perceived homogeneity of many and large contemporary urban areas’. In this sense, the previous design finds overwhelming success in its appeal to the urban populace, as a civic ‘place’ of activity. While its illustrious counterpart to the North East – Dundas Square piggybacks on neighbouring commercial, NPS exists in a distinctive civic context and needs to uphold civic values in a dignified, austere and modernist manner. According to Lang’s typology of Urban design (2005), the project qualifies as ‘Plug-in urban design’ as new addition to the urban fabric used as a means to catalyse growth and to provide a new public amenity. ‘Competing Modernisms’ demonstrates that within the Canadian context, Toronto’s 1958 competition had a “seismic and enduring impact” on future developments. Not only did it spark important debates on the meaning of public buildings and on the place of competitions in commissioning them, but it also cultivated the acceptance of Modernist architecture as an appropriate style for major civic projects. Moreover, it raised expectations for the quality of urban public space (McMordie, 2017). According to Busquets (2006), urbanistic projects that resolve the most pressing issues faced by our cities can be categorised into ten types. Her definition for ‘Reconfigured surfaces’ refers to urbanism achieved through judicious design and the use of public and communal spaces. It relies on reconfiguring a wide variety of underutilised spaces through smaller scale projects executed with moderate means. If this type of urbanism of ‘Reconfigured surfaces’ involves reprogramming of outdated spaces to create new 9

Figure 10: Snack Pavilion Image Reference: https://www.raic.org/sites/default/files/awards/images/award_recipients/35npsconcessionoverlook.jpg

Figure 11: Concessions Bridge

Figure 12: Timeline of events related to Nathan Phillips Square

Image Reference:https://www.raic.org/sites/default/files/awards/im-

Image Credit: Kulkarni S. & Nasr Esfahani N., 20 April 2018

ages/award_recipients/30npsconcessionbridge.jpg

Figure 13: Panaromic view from Elevated Walkway South East corner - Nathan Phillips Square Image Reference: Paolo Costa Baldi; https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9f/Nathan_Phillips_square_-_Toronto.jpg/1050px-Nathan_Phillips_square_-_Toronto.jpg. Accessed 20 April 2018

spaces that serve as anchors for urban growth, then based on its founding principles, NPS certainly qualifies under it. Capitalisation is a process widely seen across metropolitan landscapes, and yet strictly in the monetary sense of the term, NPS represents diametrically opposite values,. Although, the project has significant costs invested in the Parking below the Square – the City has still upheld the ‘unbuilt’ expression of development. In the face of rising densities, increasing land costs and scarcity of space, it is an uphill task for people in authority to preserve open spaces with many fighting losing battles under such circumstances. However, in this case, the task is made easier, given that the site is a heritage site and its origins rooted in historically significant events related to Toronto. To this end, NPS’s original purpose – to serve as a ‘public forum’ – is at play and well protected even today. Given the multi-functional nature of the site, the Square may also be considered as a ‘flexible urban space’. Not only does it enable loose programmes, expectations and use of landscape, but it also respects the unknown, messy nature of public spaces. In the fact, that it does not lock down the use of the square to specific functions in a certain way, NPS respects the paradigm of ‘Flexible Urban Space’. Additionally, when public spaces embody higher flexibility and affordances for its users, it allows the public to personalise them and build a sense of attachment. Of the various types of Urbanism - at least 60 known types (Barnett, 2011) – landscape urbanism remains amongst the most contested. Does it contribute to Urbanism, a process that generates the form of a city if there is no built form or land use that is directly engineered? According to Waldheim (2015), landscape has been found relevant for sites in which a strict architectural order of the city has been rendered obsolete or inadequate through social, technological, or environmental change. It also addresses questions relevant to green infrastructure in the informal city, and questions of risk and resilience, adaptation and change. The cumulative effect of these sites and subjects has been to foreground the potential for landscape as a medium and model for the city as a collective spatial project (Waldheim, 2015). In this light, NPS does provide a green respite to its citizens, addresses both, adaptation and change, witnessed by cities over time. As cities become denser and increased land and building costs force residential floor plans to be smaller, social activities are pushed to common spaces.(Cisneros, 2015). It takes tremendous political will to stave off development forces creeping up the edges of open spaces. Most cities in North America are defined by its public realm–how its streets, squares and parks are configured as well as the ways that people animate and appropriate those spaces (Luka, 2013). This puts public places at the forefront of efforts related to ‘place making’ and identity creation, making them the flagbearers of recreation and respite for urban folk. Larry Wayne Richards, former dean of the John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design at the University of Toronto, believes that the personal set of values about the public realm are either weak or missing in Toronto (Mays, 2015). While the city’s history is marked by remarkable public-sector surges in consciousness—the political struggles over the design of City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square occasioned a very important discussion in the late 1950s—followed by spells of inattention by urban

Figure 14: Peace Garden from Osgoode Lane

Figure 15: Terraced seating in Peace Garden

Image Reference: http://landezine-award.com/wp-content/up-

loads/2017/05/Image03_NPSPeaceGardenNight-1024x683.jpg

loads/2017/05/Image02_NPSPeaceGarden-1024x677.jpg

Figure 16: Theatre from Plaza

Figure 17: Bench with largest green roof terrace

Image Reference: http://landezine-award.com/wp-content/up-

loads/2017/05/Image07_NPSTheatreNight-1024x683.jpg

loads/2017/05/Image05_NPSPodiumBench-1024x683.jpg

Figure 18: Theatre from Plaza On Axis

Figure 19: Queenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Street Planter Bench

Image Reference: http://landezine-award.com/wp-content/up-

loads/2017/05/Image08_NPSTheatre-1024x689.jpg

loads/2017/05/Image06_NPSQueenStreetPlanterBench-1024x683.jpg

leaders and the populace toward the public realm. As Toronto finds itself in the midst of a private development boom that is redefining the skyline, politicians and officials and ordinary citizens have proven notably reluctant to invest enough time, intelligence, financial wherewithal—and heart—in the city’s public spaces to make them great (Mays, 2015). Considering city building approaches, this materialist attitude of underestimating the value of open space, while over-rating the value of built space is seen all to often. The paradigm of a strategic urban project concerns an approach to city building, in which projects are undertaken to effect broader change. These are not born of the ‘problem-solution’ mentality, but with a broader vision to catalyse change and create growth in the long term. NPS is one such project, whose goals were not ‘lot’ centric (like a private owner) but encompassed tangible and intangible benefits for the city as a whole. In such cases, the City can launch a project, creating an investment platform for private-sector land development permitting profitability to be the main driver for such a project. Sadly, such projects generally end up relinquishing their holistic goals for more capitalistic ones. As an aberration, NPS was launched by the city and funded by the city. So, while the budget certainly formed a controlling factor, the end product was not shaped by a capitalist concern for profitability. Thus, no ‘real-estate’ was created for sale, thus allowing the end product to manifest based on the limitations of tax-payers funds available. This characteristic alone sets its apart from the Quartier Des Spectacle in Montreal, in which concerted public-private effort consolidated and infuse apart of the city with transformative energy (Luka, 2013). Such projects, as seen in the case of NPS, maintain the integrity of the concept with practically no changes to the original vision. However, the cash flow conditions often affect finishes or the phasing of the project, letting it be assembled in installments over time. Such projects also end up relying on the magnanimity of municipal bodies, rather than turning into viable, self sustaining financial models. Hodge and Gordon (2014) see a community plan as something more than a design for the community or a statement of what the community wants to become. It pits future aims versus immediate needs and the ideal view versus a local view, to frame a planning viewpoint. Its primary concerns include, importance of the built environment, patterns and processes of land development, establishing good planning principles, coordination, and outlining the need for such policy. The Community plan, thus, focusses on the built environment, is long range and forward looking, comprehensive in viewpoint, general and broad based in perspective. policy guide for future physical development. The fact that the site of NPS is of national historic importance and has not required rezoning since the time of its inception, has undermined the role Urban planners have played in preserving it. If NPS is seen in the larger planning context, its general location in downtown Toronto has led to increased densification efforts and yet, correspondingly NPS as an open, public square for civic engagement has become that much more important. It plays a vital role in ‘Place making’ for adjacent urban communities and at the scale of the city, the NPS Revitalisation project sets benchmarks in encouraging active transportation, sustainable and green initiatives such as rain water harvesting, recycling of water etc… This vision is clearly aligned with Toronto’s Green Development Standard and with LEED principles of design. Its visual and physical recreation value offers priceless opportunities to urban folk, and with its vibrant culture as an incentive for intensification or reurbanisation efforts, to lure people back within the city. 13

Figure 20: Forum for Activism. Safety advocates consisting of relatives of pedstrians killed in motor vehicle accidents stage a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Die-Inâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; at NPS on 26 March 2018. Image Reference: https://images.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/ news/gta/2018/03/26/safety-advocates-hold-die-in-at-toronto-cityhall/sr_pedestrian_05.jpg.size-custom-crop.1086x0.jpg Accessed 20 March 2018

Figure 21: Forum for Activism. Groups protesting to permit retail sale of Marijuana, 20 April 2018 Image Reference: https://postmediatorontosun.files.wordpress.com/2018/04/ ts20180420ed10.jpg. Accessed 20 March 2018

Figure 22: Annual Events New Years Eve Celebrations 2018 Image Reference: http://admin.mktlist. ca/content/blog/Image3636486614792529452. jpg. Accessed 20 March 2018

Figure 23: Pan Am Games 2015 near Toronto sign & Pride parade Image Reference: https:// upload.wikimedia.org/ wikipedia/commons/4/4c/ Toronto2015_PanAm_Sign. jpg Accessed 20 March 2018

Thus, the vision for NPS is congruent in every way, not just with the planning goals of the city of Toronto, but every major city of the 21st Century.

WHAT WORKS… With spaces that allow the citizens of Toronto to unwind or be active, engage in collective experiences or seek solitude, the square accommodates many different users and uses. In its present form, apart from being a urban scale gathering space and a breakout area for the commercial buildings around, it also hosts several annual events including, New Year’s Eve Party, the Cavalcade of Lights Festival, the lighting of the official Christmas tree, Nuit Blanche Arts Festival, the Khalsa Day Celebrations for the Sikh community and the skating rink experience in Winters. It even successfully adapted as a Sports venue to host the 2015 Pan Am Games and 2017 Invictus Games (Mays, 2015). This allows the Square to be economically sustainable, which if not, sounds the death knell for such places eventually. It is unfair to judge a nascent project, completed only two years ago, as it takes years for a project to integrate with the socio-cultural aspect of a city. Yet, given that NPS has served the same purpose since 1965, it has had a 50-year head start, playing the role of a hub of municipal politics, a centre for socializing with friends and family, and a host of various cultural and public events. Together, city branding and culture-led redevelopment, work as combined instruments to compete in the global market for investments, tourism dollars and symbolic power. The instrumentalization of culture in urban strategies is symptomatic of the growing worldwide competition amongst cities (Loison, 2013). As a remnant of the Pan Am Games, the ‘TORONTO’ digital glow sign next to the reflection pool in NPS is wildly popular and certainly counts as a signature Toronto element. Public debate continues regarding the permanent retention of the sign within the square or its relocation to a worthier space. This goes a long way to show that some of the most popular elements in public memory are not a product of a structured program or a product of design. NPS’s greatest success lies in its ability to act as a stage for its citizens to play out democratic processes. They celebrate, they fight, they protest – all at the same venue. A case in point is the recent ‘4/20’ protests on ‘International day for Cannabis’ (Stevenson, 2018). These were controversially conducted at NPS, against direct orders from the City which prohibited the demonstration as smoking was not permitted on NPS premises. As an interdisciplinary and collaborative endeavour between Architects, Urban Designers, Landscape Architects, Engineers, the project delivers remarkably well. Architects have a proclivity to develop ‘built space’ and this project is a wonderful example of how productive an unbuilt, unprogrammed and austere ‘loose’ space can be. The technical aspects of the project seem to be coordinated flawlessly, with no pipes or elements of infrastructure apparent in plain sight. Although there is no documented evidence of developing the competition design with the public as a coproduction effort or of seeking public opinion about the competition design, the crowds thronging to this venue would indicate that there is no discon15

Figure 24: Restaurant unbuilt at South West corner owing to cost overruns Image Reference: http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/articles/2015/12/18632/18632-62913.jpg Accessed 20 March 2018

Figure 25: Connectivity and permeability of site is poor from Bay St. owing to existing railing. Image Reference: http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/ default/files/imagecache/display-default/images/articles/2015/12/18632/18632-62914.jpg Accessed 20 March 2018

Figure 26:Elevated Walkways were not renovated Image Reference: http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/display-slideshow/images/articles/2015/12/18632/18632-62920.jpg Accessed 20 March 2018

Figure 27: Queen Street forecourt with larger vegetaion patches than proposed in design, to reduce paving costs Image Reference:http://urbantoronto.ca/sites/ default/files/imagecache/display-default/images/articles/2015/12/18632/18632-62919.jpg Accessed 20 March 2018

nect in this regard.

WHAT DOES NOT WORK… The Restaurant, planned in the South West corner of the site, unfortunately never took off. Owing to the lack of interest of Food and Beverage Operators and the high start-up costs, Council decided to defer plans for the Restaurant in the square “indefinitely” and to landscape the area for public use (Pagliaro, 2016). The exit from the Square along Bay Street is blocked by a railing thus shutting out patrons of adjacent areas and missing the opportunity to encourage connectivity and benefit from thoroughfare. The Elevated walkways, a defining feature of the original design, evoke mixed feelings in patrons. Some feel they visually segregate the site from the adjacent communities, while others think of the covered walkways as wonderful shelters during inclement weather. However, they do accentuate the feeling of enclosure within the Square, making it feel closed and finite. The fickleness of public opinion in Toronto during the last several years, the City of Toronto’s chronic financial problems, the skyrocketing cost of construction, the hostility of David Miller’s successors toward the whole idea—these and other forces doomed the project from the outset to achieve only a few of its objectives (Mays, 2015).

END NOTE So, what sets NPS apart from other similar projects? NPS is an historically relevant, iconic place that the public in Toronto use in a multitude of ways. As Luka (2013) identifies that two exciting things have emerged from new, strategic city-building ventures; one, an array of excellent works of architecture and urban design by Canadian firms, and two, a raising of the bar of public debate on how we should rebuild our cities and metropolitan spaces in the 21st century. It has been 50 years since the three words– government, democracy, and community – drove the vision and formed the basis of the original design of NPS. Given the current state of affairs, all evidence points to the fact that those three words are still very much at work and at conflict with each other, as they should be.

Bibliography

Anonymous. (2016). Governor General’s Medal Winner: Nathan Phillips Square Revitalization. Canadian Architect. Retrieved from https://www.canadianarchitect.com/features/governor-generals-nathan/

Barnett, J. (2011). A Short Guide to 60 of the Newest Urbanisms. Planning, 77(4).

Busquets, J. (2006). Defining the Urbanistic Project–Ten Contemporary Approachs. Harvard Design Magazine. Fall, 71-73.

Cisneros, H. (2015). 13 Trends behind America’s Urban Paradign Shift. In U. L. Institute (Ed.), Urban real estate investment : a new era of opportunity (pp. 54-67).

Economides, A. (2015). Toronto’s New City Hall and Nathan Phillips Square: Design Process, Product and Legacy. Retrieved from https://www.canadianarchitect.com/features/1003730157/

Fournier, Gersovitz, & Moss. (2005). Nathan Phillips Square Design Competiton Findings - Heritage Issues Report. Retrieved from http://ville.montreal.qc.ca/pls/portal/docs/PAGE/CONSEIL_PATRIMOINE_MTL_FR/MEDIA/ DOCUMENTS/(2)%20NATHANPHILLIPSS_HERITAGE_ISSUES_05.10.24.PDF

Hodge, G., & Gordon, D. L. A. (2014). The urban community plan: its characteristics and role. In Planning Canadian Communities; an introduction to the principles, practice and participants (6th ed., pp. pp.211-235). Toronto: Nelson Education.

Krieger, A. (2009). Where and how does urban design happen. Urban design, 113-130.

Lang, J. (2005). Urban design: A typology of procedures and products: Routledge.

Loison, L. (2013). Making the Creative City: A Case Study of the Quartier des Spectacles.

Lorinc, J. (2016). Civic Symbol: Creating Toronto’s New City Hall, 1952–1966 by Christopher Armstrong. Canadian Historical Review, 97(4), 606-609. doi:10.3138/chr.97.4.BR14

Luka, N. (2013). Urban spectacular: A bold series of downtown plazas reintroduces vibrant urban life into spaces left over from postwar mega-projects. Canadian Architect, 58(2), 18-22.

Mays, J. B. (2015). Circling the square. Canadian Architect, 14-19. 18

McMordie, M. (2017). COMPETING MODERNISMS: TORONTO’S NEW CITY HALL AND SQUARE. Journal of the Society for the Study of Architecture in Canada. Pagliaro, J. (2016). The redesign of Nathan Phillips Square won Canada’s highest architectural honour. This gravel patch is still not finished. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/city-hall-blog/2016/09/ the-redesign-of-nathan-phillips-sqaure-won-canada-s-highest-architectural-honour-this-gravel-patch-is-stillnot-finished.html Stevenson, J. (2018). 4/20: No permit but 1,000s light up in Toronto’s Nathan Phillips Square. Toronto Sun. Retrieved from http://torontosun.com/news/local-news/4-20-no-permit-but-1000s-light-up-in-torontos-nathan-phillips-square Waldheim, C. (2015). Is landscape urbanism? In Is Landscape...? (pp. 176-203): Routledge.