JURY REPORT

JURY REPORT FOREWORD The 2009 Toronto Urban Design Awards, the 6th since amalgamation, celebrate the best urban design in Toronto. Unlike other design awards programs that highlight individual projects, the Urban Design Awards honour the improvements to urban life made by designers who are focusing on context—the way their designs fit into the surrounding environment and contribute to the creation of great public spaces. To create a successful “place,” each new building, open space and streetscape element has to follow a similar set of rules—some written, some unwritten—so that the sum of parts works as a coherent, well-proportioned whole, despite being built by many individuals and over a long period of time. We have worked hard over the years to refine the submission requirements to emphasize placemaking and context and we have observed an enthusiastic response from the design community and noticeable improvements in the urban design quality of submissions. We have also been pleased to see an increasing number of award entries making reference to, or being influenced by City policies and initiatives such as Transit City, the Coordinated Street Furniture Program, Tower Renewal, Percent for Public Art, the Avenues and design guidelines for Tall and Mid-Rise buildings. The design and development community of Toronto should also be congratulated for continuing to strive for great design and “green” design principles even during these tough economic times. This year’s competition drew an impressive 117 entries in 7 categories. The Jury—Ian Chodikoff, Jack Diamond, Eha Naylor and Michael Van Valkenburgh—were impressed by the depth and breadth of the submissions and had lengthy, spirited debates about both the meaning and importance of the program as well as individual projects. Collectively, they decided this year to make the Award of Excellence the singular top prize in each category. Therefore, there are fewer Awards of Excellence and more Honourable Mentions than in the past. The Jury, through their comments, also used the Awards as an opportunity to send a number of important messages to the City and the design community. The report is therefore full of concrete ideas, criticisms and lessons that can be applied beyond the individual award winning projects. A core group of city staff worked extremely hard, particularly after a lengthy and unplanned labour disruption, to organize yet another successful awards program and gala celebration at the Palais Royale. I would also like to extend my deepest thanks to our new and returning sponsors for their generous support and commitment to promoting design excellence in Toronto. Robert Freedman Director, Urban Design Toronto City Planning Gary Wright Chief Planner and Executive Director Robert Freedman Alka Lukatela Design: Director, Urban Design Program Manager, Civic Improvements Design, Print and Mail, City of Toronto TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword Award Categories Jury Statement .................................................................................................................. 2 .................................................................................................................. 3 PRIVATE LOW-SCALE BUILDINGS IN CONTEXT Award of Excellence 40R_Laneway House ................................................................................ 4 PRIVATE MID-RISE BUILDINGS IN CONTEXT Award of Excellence Honourable Mention Academy Lane & Beach House Lofts........................................................ 5 294 Richmond ........................................................................................... 6 Loggia Condominiums............................................................................... 7 Toy Factory Lofts ....................................................................................... 8 PRIVATE TALL BUILDINGS IN CONTEXT Award of Excellence Honourable Mention Spire .......................................................................................................... 9 JAZZ ........................................................................................................ 10 PUBLIC BUILDINGS IN CONTEXT Award of Excellence Honourable Mention Toronto Public Library - Pape/Danforth Branch ...................................... 11 Bloorview Kids Rehab ............................................................................. 12 Artscape Wychwood Barns .................................................................... 13 Transformation AGO ............................................................................... 14 SMALL OPEN SPACES Award of Excellence Honourable Mention Spadina Wavedeck ................................................................................ 15 Toronto Botanical Garden ...................................................................... 16 Ireland Park Toronto ................................................................................ 17 VISIONS & MASTER PLANS Award of Excellence Honourable Mention Mayor’s Tower Renewal Opportunities Book ......................................... 18 Lawrence Heights Revitalization Development Concept Plan .............. 19 Lake Ontario Park Master Plan ............................................................... 20 STUDENT PROJECTS Honourable Mention 2009 Jury Sponsors Water Theatre......................................................................................... 21 ................................................................................................................ 22 ................................................................................................................ 23  AWARD CATEGORIES The City of Toronto accepted entries for the 2009 Urban Design Awards in seven major categories. 1. Elements A stand-alone object, landscape element or smallscale piece of a building which contributes significantly to the quality of the public realm. Submissions may include, but are not limited to: benches, doorways, signage, canopies, porches or colonnades, gateways, light fixtures, walkways, stairways, barrier-free access, fences and works of art. massing, the natural environment and sustainable design. In this category, all building scales are eligible (low-scale, mid-rise and tall), as well as new construction and restoration/transformation. Buildings in both urban and suburban contexts will be considered. Submissions may include, but are not limited to: education, health care, recreation, cultural, community and civic buildings. 4. Small Open Spaces 2. Buildings in Context - Private An individual building or a composition of buildings, that achieve(s) urban design excellence and is precedent-setting for a project of its type through its relationship to the public realm, pedestrian amenity, detailing and massing, and the natural environment. Submissions should document and highlight how the project contributes to successful city-building through its contextual relationship and measures of sustainable design. All types of buildings are eligible whether “landmark” or “background,” new construction or a restoration/transformation. Projects in both urban and suburban contexts will be considered. The Building in Context category consists of three sub-categories that reflect a range of scales: A small open space, generally related to and defined by adjacent buildings or natural/manmade elements, which provides an extension and addition to the public realm in an exemplary way. The small open space need not be publicly owned, but must be publicly accessible. Submissions may include, but are not limited to: courtyards, plazas, forecourts, gardens, trails, mews and small neighbourhood parks. 5. Large Places or Neighbourhood Designs a. Low-scale A low-scale project is four storeys or less, not withstanding its land use. Submissions may include, but are not limited to: residential uses such as houses and townhouses; and retail, office, or industrial facilities on main streets and arterials. A design plan for a new or renovated large-scale area of the city. The project must be completed to such extent to allow the jury to clearly understand and evaluate the plan. The submissions in this category should clearly state the existing conditions and demonstrate how City objectives for establishing a clear public structure of streets, parks, open spaces and building sites are met. The submission should also highlight major areas of innovation, particularly those related to infrastructure, environmental management and sustainable design, as well as provide evidence of community involvement and acceptance. Submissions may include, but are not limited to: large parks, area/district plans, neighbourhood plans, Transit Oriented Developments (TODs), subdivisions, industrial parks, campus plans and streetscapes. Both urban and suburban contexts will be considered. b. Mid-rise A mid-rise building is generally taller than a house or townhouse, but no taller than the street right-of-way which it faces (typically 4-12 storeys). Submissions may include, but are not limited to: mixed-use “Avenue” buildings, small apartment/condo buildings, commercial and industrial buildings. c. Tall A tall building rises higher than the width 6. Visions and Master Plans of the right-of-way of the principal street on which it is located. A building that has both tall and midrise components should be entered in this category. Submissions may include, but are not limited to: residential or commercial buildings. 3. Buildings in Context - Public Unexecuted visions for the city, studies and master plans of high inspirational value with the potential for significant impact on Toronto’s development. Submissions in this category may include but are not limited to: theoretical and visionary projects, as well as any project fitting the description of Large Places or Neighbourhood Designs that is unbuilt. An individual building or a composition of buildings, with a primary function to serve the public and/or is largely accessible to the public. Public Buildings are focal points for communities of various sizes, from small neighbourhoods to a national body. Submissions should demonstrate urban design and architectural excellence through a relationship to the public realm, pedestrian amenity, detailing and 7. Student Projects Students in urban design, architecture, landscape architecture and other design programs are invited to submit theoretical or studio projects relating to Toronto. The Jury reserves the right not to present awards in every category.  Jury Statement When considering the submissions for these urban design awards, there has clearly been significant progress over the past few years on evolving the image of Toronto’s urbanism. However, for many of the projects reviewed, aspects pertaining to the treatment of the landscape and the public realm were still lacking in design resolution. Many projects contained an unevenness in their approach to urban design, especially as it pertained to dedicating sufficient thought to landscape architecture and the buildings’ treatment at the ground or street level. The jury recognized and appreciated that many of the projects were important examples of recent urban design guidelines established by the City of Toronto—especially when it came to introducing townhouses and mid-block intensification along the city’s many avenues. However, the quality of the submissions during this cycle of the urban design awards program suggests that there remains considerable room for improvement. Nevertheless, those responsible for the future of Toronto’s urban environment—design professionals and developers alike—are to be commended for their efforts over the past few years, but certainly more effort must be made to continue the evolution of Toronto’s built environment. Unfortunately, the jury decided not to give an award in the Elements category this year. With only a handful of entries, none of the projects captured the imagination of the jury, who were interested to see small design interventions that could successfully trigger the imagination of the public while serving as a catalyst for a heightened awareness or delight of public space. Large public places remain an extremely important aspect of the city, providing exciting places for assembly and recreation. Large public places add value to entire precincts of the city, facilitating growth, densification and further qualitative refinements at all scales in the public realm. Regretting the fact that no awards were given in this category, and given the numerous large public projects currently in development, the jury is certain that there will be more entries submitted in this category during the next awards program. In general, the jury was not impressed by the visions proposed in the student category. Many of these projects were unconvincing in their intentions, never mind their applicability in a contemporary urban setting. Questions of inappropriate scale and overall conceptual rigour created serious problems for the jury who were looking for inventive proposals that had innovative contributions to the future of Toronto’s urban environment. Despite all the criticism, the jury was most impressed by the range in problem-solving abilities of design practitioners operating in Toronto and there were several encouraging moments amongst the entries. The jury’s message when awarding this year’s projects is to not necessarily give awards based solely on aesthetics, but to acknowledge meritorious projects for their overarching sensibilities that suggest an intelligent recognition and response of a given project’s place within its context. Certainly, Toronto has experienced incredible growth over the past few years, and this is evidenced in the breadth and complexity of the submissions, as was the level of sophistication and global awareness. We encourage the city and any designer practicing in Toronto to continue to believe in innovation and a dedicated concern for improving the public realm, no matter the budget or scale of design intervention. JURY STATEMENT From left: Eha Naylor, Michael Van Valkenburgh, Jack Diamond, Ian Chodikoff.  AWARD OF EXCELLENCE BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PRIVATE Low-scale building 40R Shaftesbury Avenue 40R_LANEWAY HOUSE Project Team superkül inc | architect Clients Elena Soni and Jorge Soni Jury Comment Architecturally speaking, this is a wonderful residence and a real surprise upon discovery. The neighbouring houses are of an almost wildly different range of styles, and this house adds both a profound and playful complement. It is a clever piece of design and its presence debunks the myth that you cannot provide a single-family home in a dense urban space. Forget about making the streets wider. This project supports a rationale for simply making fire trucks smaller to fit within a denser urban fabric. The project also begs the question as to why we couldn’t develop central garbage pick-up locations to serve such tightly knit housing in the centre of the city. Clad with rusted metal panels, the exterior of the building was clearly designed to exude a rough aesthetic befitting a laneway residence of this kind. It is somewhat ironic that the building’s material palette and formal gestures are anything but unrefined. This project is certainly a perfect piece of infill.  AWARD OF EXCELLENCE BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PRIVATE Mid-rise building ACADEMY LANE AND BEACH HOUSE LOFTS 1842 & 1852 Queen Street East Project Team WHA Architects Inc. The Walsh Group STREETCAR Construction Jury Comment This project is a very sympathetic integration with the scale of the street. So many Toronto buildings of a similar scale and context contain second and third floors that are unappealing to tenants. This is one of the few projects we’ve seen that represents an exemplary “Avenue” development for the City of Toronto. The architecture is authentic and has deftly introduced some very decent housing above the retail stores on the ground level—an ideal situation for a mixed-use building of this kind. The building extends flush to the street, which makes for a development that is firmly engaged with the public realm. The roof gardens are a real bonus, as they make use of an important opportunity to increase the project’s sustainability quotient. So often, we waste the space on the roof with poorly resolved mechanical systems. Another successful element to this project is the scaling down of the residential component behind the building. One of the drawbacks to this project is the lack of sun protection for the ground-floor retail tenants. The easiest way to provide sun protection is the provision of an awning that is either permanent or retractable. Even if a glass canopy was provided over the sidewalk, better protection could be provided for its groundfloor occupants and passersby. Developer STREETCAR Developments  HONOURABLE MENTION BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PRIVATE Mid-rise building 294 RICHMOND Project Team 294 Richmond Street East Sweeney Sterling Finlayson &Co Architects Architect/Urban Designer Developer CTL Group Jury Comment This building makes good use of such a tight site. It is commendable that this project comprises a component of rental housing. While the seemingly random pattern of the façade left some members of the jury decidedly unimpressed, we should definitely compliment the architects on successfully devising a single-loaded building (with rental housing, no less) on an extremely tiny site.  HONOURABLE MENTION BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PRIVATE Mid-rise building LOGGIA CONDOMINIUMS 1040-1050 The Queensway Project Team SMV Architects Architect Insite Landscape Architects Landscape Architect Structural Engineer Halsall Associates Jury Comment This building sets a precedent for mid-rise buildings on main streets, especially one as busy as The Queensway. The simplicity of the design was appreciated, as was the straightforwardness of the building’s architecture. Although the jury appreciated how the building’s massing acknowledged the single-family residential buildings to its north, a more nuanced approach to its context would have been preferred. For example, a greater distinction between its Queensway façade, and the façade facing the adjacent houses would have made the project’s urban presence more sophisticated. Moreover, it would have been preferable to scale down the residential side and scale-up the façade along the busy arterial. Designing for a more permeable ground floor would also have been preferable through the addition of front doors along the ground floor of the building. Of great disappointment was the unresolved landscape architecture strategy with respect to the sodding and tree planting along the sidewalk. Since this project will set a precedent for future development in this neighbourhood, the landscape architecture had the opportunity to become precedent-setting for its ability to create a much more dynamic sidewalk condition. The project also raised the difficult challenge of what a landscape in this context can realistically contribute to a neighbourhood that is beginning the process of densification. It remains to be seen how a more intense urban or civic landscape can be realized—and the jury will undoubtedly have to wait many years before this area of the city achieves its maximum potential. Assuredly, the efforts put into this development indicate that its urbanization intentions are headed in the right direction. Able Engineering Trow Associates Civil Engineer Mechanical/Electrical Engineer Developer BrandyLane Corporation  HONOURABLE MENTION BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PRIVATE Mid-rise building TOY FACTORY LOFTS 43 Hanna Avenue Project Team Quadrangle Architects Limited Architect Builder/Developer Lanterra Developments Ltd. Jury Comment This project contained several strategies which allowed the complex to successfully interact with the public realm of Liberty Village. Opening the courtyard to the street was a deliberate and supportive enhancement of a created public space. The project exudes a neighbourhood feel and overall, the general configuration of the building was quite clever. The tapered end of the building, a genuine palette of industrial materials and a conservative but effective application of plantings and greenery provides for a welcomed urban gesture to this renovation of an old industrial building located within a newly intensified downtown urban area.  AWARD OF EXCELLENCE BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PRIVATE Tall building SPIRE 33 Lombard Street Project Team architectsAlliance Developer Context Developments Jury Comment The building meets the ground/sidewalk in a contemporary manner. If you want to identify a base to the building, the architects have achieved this in a reverse manner. Instead of conventionally stepping the tower back, the balconies are set forward, and protrude to the lot line, from the sixth floor and above. This was likely done because the architects couldn’t get a permission to hang the balconies over the sidewalk. Consequently, the architects have designed the base of the building in an unusual manner, but one that opened up the possibility for interesting retail and commercial activity at grade. The building has a limited material palette that was achieved in a minimalist way. This project simply understands where it is located and its purpose within the city. The north-facing grasses are healthy—except in the areas of the deepest shade—and appropriate for a reducedlight landscape design. Perhaps the designers initially wanted a single species of very hardy grass. Nonetheless, the final material palette used for the plantings remains restrained and is growing better than any other landscape the jury had visited. The rusticated natural stone curbs at the base of the tower are also extremely minimal, effective and consistent with the rest of the building. The design of the entry lane completely accommodates the automobile in a friendly way. By not following a literal circle for the entry driveway, the result is a landscape that feels both urban and pedestrian, yet succeeds in accommodating the vehicles on the site. One criticism lies in the fact that there could have been some form of canopy incorporated into the project’s design—the ground-floor retailers must pull down their blinds throughout most of the day to protect themselves and their goods from extreme sun, glare and solar gain.  HONOURABLE MENTION BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PRIVATE Tall building JAZZ 167 Church Street Project Team Burka Architects Inc. Architect NAK Design Group Landscape Architect Heritage Architect E.R.A. Architects Inc. Jury Comment Functionally, the jury decided that this project achieved some success with its approach to urban design, despite the architecture of the tower above and the inherent difficulties of maintaining the building’s historic façade. For this project, there was certainly a slavish attention paid to the historic building in the centre of the block. After seeing the results of saving this historic façade and incorporating the existing development into an average downtown residential development, the jury felt that it might have been better to have a contemporary building of the same scale rather than retain the historic façade. Nonetheless, the project is certainly commendable in that it made an honest attempt to unify a variety of buildings on the block while introducing a variety of scales in the development’s overall massing. The jury also realizes the degree of complexity required in saving an historic building while increasing the block’s density to ensure a commercially viable project that benefits the health of this neighbourhood. Perhaps the most significant success of this project is the northeast corner, which has become a vibrant outdoor space with an appropriately inviting café on the corner. However, with the exception of the northeast corner, the public realm and the design resolution of the streetscape has an underwhelming urban quality that is lacking in the opportunity of introducing a rich material palette. Developer Concert Properties Ltd. 0 AWARD OF EXCELLENCE BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PUBLIC TORONTO PUBLIC LIBRARY– PAPE/DANFORTH BRANCH 701 Pape Avenue Project Team Hariri Pontarini Architects Jury Comment This library exudes a sense of confidence and a high degree of integration into its busy streetscape. It is seamlessly inserted into a very urban context and the new architectural pieces are uncompromisingly contemporary. That is a real feat for the architects and a testament to the dedication of a client who clearly values the benefits of successful architecture as a way of engendering community and community space: the creation of this very accessible neighbourhood library is exemplary. Client Toronto Public Library  HONOURABLE MENTION BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PUBLIC BLOORVIEW KIDS REHAB 150 Kilgour Road Project Team Montgomery Sisam Architects Stantec Architecture Ltd. In Joint Venture Client Bloorview Kids Rehab Jury Comment This building is a lot better than most public commissions, even some of Toronto’s recent wellpublicized cultural institutions. Although not stellar in its approach to urban design, this project has evolved into a genuinely active and vibrant health campus. The project successfully brought its scale down to the residential neighbourhood to its immediate south in a wonderful design move. Overall, there is an honest, even authentic component to this contemporary building that has sensitively addressed its context—both the residential neighbourhood and the ravines to its north. The best part of the ground plane addresses where the building meets the ravine. It is an institutional building that has clearly married its programmatic requirements to the site in a light-hearted expressive form that exudes a definitive sense of hope—very appropriate given its function as a healthcare facility for children. The campus avoids the pomposity of most institutions and its architectural language is appealingly appropriate. Its limited and yet non-minimal material palette is also admirable.  HONOURABLE MENTION BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PUBLIC ARTSCAPE WYCHWOOD BARNS 601 Christie Street Project Team Joe Lobko Architect Inc. / du Toit Architects Limited ERA Architects Inc. Stantec Consulting Blackwell-Bowick Partnership Limited The Planning Partnership Michael Dixon-University of Guelph BA Group Leber Rubes Inc. Gottschalk + Ash International The Dalton Company Ltd. Jury Comment The building is to be commended for its ability to successfully transform old streetcar barns into a veritable community centre that is vibrant, inviting and accessible. Picking up on its industrial heritage, the approach to this adaptive reuse urban commission is appropriately spare and raw in strategic places. The project is also the result of a series of careful and responsible resolutions to a complex set of programmatic criteria involving a hefty range of stakeholders—including active community organizations and financial supporters. However, the materials used throughout the renovations could have been even more “crude” than what was selected and detailed. Perhaps the architects could have selected a more industrial-type product for the building’s doors and windows. It should be noted that jury feels very strongly that an honourable mention should be given to the building only. As far as the project’s landscape architecture is concerned, the selection of plant materials was generally wrong. It is unfortunate that the design team took the landscape budget and spread it evenly across the site. This was a mistake that resulted in a mediocre result that should have taken greater efforts to decide upon where the project’s budget should have been spent more appropriately. Clearly, the landscape designers were hobbled by a woefully inadequate budget but their response to spread too little money evenly across the site only made matters worse. Developer/Client Artscape Owner City of Toronto  HONOURABLE MENTION BUILDING IN CONTEXT | PUBLIC TRANSFORMATION AGO 317 Dundas Street West Project Team Gehry International, Architects, Inc. Architect Jury Comment This building is a positive contribution to the neighbourhood. Generally speaking, its massing and presence—especially along the very public side of the gallery facing Dundas Street—represents some very fine elements that comprise the project. The way in which the galleria gives protection to the sidewalk is quite extraordinary, as is the successful unification of the sidewalk and loggia. The singular element of the wood and glass canopy can be considered quite dramatic. Incorporating the old Henry Moore Sculpture Centre was also a success. The project decidedly avoided fussing over details such as downspouts and steel bracing, thereby adding an appropriate sense of artistry and even honesty to the renovation. Overall, the Dundas Street elevation provides a very welcoming cultural institution, despite its weaknesses in failing to more clearly define the building’s front entrance. As for the back of the building which overlooks Grange Park, the project certainly contributes to an oppressive and overbearing feeling to the park. Selecting a blue titanium cladding was not a problem for some of the members of the jury—it’s not so much the colour of the metal cladding as the uncomfortable effect of such a large wall that insensitively incorporates the existing and historic Grange buildings. The protruding stair on this façade did not impress the jury much. Its presence seemed poorly resolved, even arbitrary. At least one landscape architect on the jury felt that the south façade all but crushes the beauty of Grange Park—this can be seen as retrograde with respect to contemporary attitudes about park design and landscape. Nonetheless, the jury endorses buildings that are contextually responsive by not being “the same” on every side. Client Art Gallery of Ontario  AWARD OF EXCELLENCE SMALL OPEN SPACE SPADINA WAVEDECK Project Team West 8 + DTAH In Joint Venture Halsall Associates Schollen & Company Inc. Mulvey Banani International David Dennis Design Brian Ballantyne Specifications Somerville Construction Spadina Avenue and Queen’s Quay Jury Comment This project is appropriate, exciting, and beautifully executed. Its presence is delightful and deceptively simple. It was certainly no small feat to achieve a design of this calibre and inventiveness along Toronto’s waterfront. Certainly, a project like this would not have been possible even five years ago. This project expressed a clear and powerful idea that seems effortless in doing something very big—extending the public’s imagination of what Toronto’s waterfront can become in the future. Furthermore, the wavedeck is the right scale for what it should be in its urban context. The wavedeck commission was a great opportunity that has since evolved into even greater projects being built in other areas along the same waterfront precinct. It is reassuring to the jury, and undoubtedly the general public, to experience how Toronto’s waterfront has matured to a point of enjoying projects of this level of sophistication being realized today. Client WATERFRONToronto  HONOURABLE MENTION SMALL OPEN SPACE TORONTO BOTANICAL GARDEN 777 Lawrence Avenue East Project Team PMA Landscape Architects Thomas Sparling Inc. In Joint Venture Cathie Cox Horticulturalist Paul Ehnes Plant Consultant Client Toronto Botanical Garden (formerly The Civic Garden Centre) Jury Comment These gardens are delightful in its urban design and this project earnestly demonstrates an honest and intense commitment to the landscape. The project doesn’t have an overbearing grandeur to its design—maybe this is what is so good about it. It is not trying to overwhelm you, or knock you out with an overwhelming sensory experience. The delight of this project lies within its rich and nuanced landscape, one that is carefully presented and finely crafted so that you can—and want to—wander through the site and either enjoy a process of discovery or quickly find what you were looking to see. One of the many delightful gestures is the water feature—you can actually touch the water. In essence, the project comes down to certain basic aspects of humanity where the scale makes you feel right. This project is a borderline Award of Excellence winner, and a real success. On another level, the project should be commended for its Modern idiom. So many recently completed botanical gardens—in the US or Canada—are steeped in a design aesthetic of almost suffocating nostalgia. It is refreshing that visitors can visit and discover plantings in a botanical garden while being inspired to develop their own gardens using a contemporary design approach. There wasn’t anything that was too sentimental or cutesy about this project. It was fresh and delightful. It is by far the strongest landscape project.  HONOURABLE MENTION SMALL OPEN SPACE IRELAND PARK TORONTO 5 Eireann Quay Project Team Kearns Mancini Architects Inc. Architect Rowan Gillespie Sculpture Quinn Design Associates Inc. Landscape Architect Jury Comment Definitely a positive addition to Toronto’s waterfront, Ireland Park remains awkwardly located between an asphalt parking lot for the Toronto City Centre Airport and the beautiful and sublime Canada Malting Silos. Nevertheless, the project is deserving of an honourable mention due to the beauty of its weighty and haunting presence. Ireland Park makes you reflect on the purpose of a park, and certainly the potential of this section of the city’s waterfront. The backdrop of the Malting Silos is a perfect foil to the sculptural installation. The strength and brilliance of the project’s urban design component was to intelligently incorporate the power of the silos into the overall aesthetic of the memorial park. Unfortunately, the crudity of the landscape, such as the border hedges at the base of the silos, seriously detract from the memorial’s power of place and are completely contradictory to the elegance and simplicity of the park’s design. Perhaps these hedges were planted as an afterthought, and against the intentions of the original designers? Another of the jury’s small criticism of the project relates to the scale of the wall inscribed with the names of the Irish who perished as a result of sickness and malnourishment. This aspect of the memorial fails to achieve its full effect, certainly during the daytime. While the engagement with the silos and the view out towards both the city and Lake Ontario is captivating, the project still feels as though it is in the wrong place in the city. The future of the malting silos will undoubtedly affect the long-term success of this special place. Read Jones Christoffersen Consulting Engineers (RJC) Picco Engineering Structural Engineers McDonnell Engineering Inc. Lighting & Electrical Engineer Custom Lighting Design Contractor Lighting Nelson & Garrett Inc. Kenaidan Contracting Ltd. Trinity Custom Masonry Ltd. Shamrock Garden & Landscaping Specialist Subcontractors Client Ireland Park Foundation  AWARD OF EXCELLENCE VISION AND MASTERPLAN 1000 sites throughout the City of Toronto MAYOR’S TOWER RENEWAL OPPORTUNITIES BOOK Project Team Jury Comment Devising a better way to improve the sustainability of 1960s high-rise towers is noteworthy. To produce a document that makes better use of the ground plane in Toronto’s inner suburbs represents a timely, responsible and strategic response to many challenges associated with the public realm. Potential scenarios that include urban agriculture or public markets may not be entirely feasible as illustrated. However, to envision such positive changes for the lives of so many Torontonians is certainly deserving of an award. E.R.A. Architects University of Toronto John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design Client City of Toronto  HONOURABLE MENTION VISION AND MASTERPLAN LAWRENCE HEIGHTS REVITALIZATION DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLAN Project Team Lawrence Avenue West / Allen Road Sweeney Sterling Finlayson &Co Architects Jury Comment This comprehensive neighbourhood redevelopment plan for a very commendable and complex initiative, provides a rather convincing attempt to unify two halves of a neighbourhood divided by a large arterial (the Allen Expressway). The plan displays a clear desire to create a residential community of mixed-income that contains a variety of public amenities, along with a healthy variety of public space that allows for numerous recreational and social activities. The ongoing challenge of a planning endeavour such as this is the social dimension—understanding the daily lives of the children and the workaday lives of their parents. A sophisticated and innovative approach to community consultation will be essential. The jury recognizes that this concept is a first step towards revitalization of this neighbourhood and awaits a more developed and implementable plan. Architect/Urban Designer/Project Manager The Planning Partnership Landscape Architect GHK International Economics Planning/Public Consultation N. Barry Lyon Consulting Dillon Consulting Transportation/Infrastructure/Sustainability Client Toronto Community Housing  HONOURABLE MENTION VISION AND MASTERPLAN LAKE ONTARIO PARK Cherry Beach, the Outer Harbour, the Baselands, Tommy Thompson Park, Ashbridge’s Bay Park & the Beaches Project Team James Corner Field Operations Schollen & Company Inc. Landscape Architect Habitat Strategies Landscape Architect/Urban Design Lead North-South Environmental Inc. Kidd Consulting Public Engagement Archaeological Services Inc. Archaeological Survey Jury Comment This proposal is a masterful exploration into a regionally-scaled park system that affects a range of birds, plants and animals—not to mention the potential for enhancing the ability to enjoy the shores of Lake Ontario. The vision for this new park system synthesizes a complex range of ideas and elements that will undoubtedly contribute to improving the identity of this cultural landscape known as Lake Ontario. Some of the design gestures feel out of scale with human habitation, but surely this can be corrected in the next design phase. CCL/IBI Marine Engineer Unterman McPhail Associates Natural Heritage Poulos & Chung Ltd. Transportation Engineer Nina-Marie Lister Ecology Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler Economic Strategy Client WATERFRONToronto 0 HONOURABLE MENTION STUDENT PROJECT WATER THEATRE Jury Comment Any project that attempts to improve a direct connection to the water is important. This project plays an effective role in utilizing media and sound. A lakeside city should definitely be able to put “its feet” in the water, as this project suggests. Moreover, using water as a reflective material for sound can have the effect of making an interesting venue for music alongside the lakeshore. The proposal is an interesting idea to place the theatre in the water. Lakeside cities should have its immediacy in the water to actually connect with the water. A very good example of where water plays its role for an effective and immediate result. Olympic Island, Toronto Islands Project Team Lila Yavari Lailee Soleimani Martin Yeung Majella Anson-Cartwright Omair Ali Stephen Perkins University University of Toronto John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape, and Design  2009 JURY Ian Chodikoff Editor - Canadian Architect Ian Chodikoff is an architect, urban designer and the editor of Canadian Architect magazine. He has undertaken projects ranging from the role of large parks to the effects of transnationalism on urbanization. Interested in multidisciplinary, collaborative and strategic design processes, he has helped facilitate a series of charrettes and presentations with the City of Toronto and the Design Exchange to improve the built environment in several priority neighbourhoods across Toronto. His travelling exhibition entitled Fringe Benefits: Cosmopolitan Dynamics of a Multicultural City was launched in July 2008 and explores the influences of multiculturalism on Toronto’s suburban communities, illustrating opportunities for social and economic development. He has lectured in various universities and cities across North America and Europe, has served on numerous juries and has written in a variety of magazines and journals on issues ranging from urban planning to sustainability. Committed to the profession, he has served on committees including the Toronto Society of Architects, the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada, as well as having been a consultant with the Canada Council for the Arts on the subject of architectural competitions and their importance to mid-sized municipalities across Canada. Jack Diamond Principal – Diamond + Schmitt Architects Inc. A.J. Diamond’s degrees include a Bachelor of Architecture (with distinction) from the University of Capetown, a Master of Arts in politics, philosophy and economics from Oxford University and a Master of Architecture from the University of Pennsylvania. He is a Fellow of the Royal Architectural Institute of Canada and the Canadian Institute of Planners and an Honourary Fellow of the American Institute of Architects. He has received honourary doctorates in Engineering from Daltech and in Law from the University of Toronto. He is a Royal Architectural Institute of Canada Gold Medalist, a member of the Order of Ontario and an Officer of the Order of Canada. Mr. Diamond was instrumental in the movement to reinforce neighbourhoods at risk with infill housing; he devised medium-rise alternatives at equivalent densities to high-rise residential development; as an entrepreneur he demonstrated the economic effectiveness of recycling historic structures for new uses; and he identified the negative impacts of sub-urban sprawl. Extra professional activities include chairmanship of the Advisory Committee on Design to the Canadian National Capital Commission, membership of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, a role as a commissioner of the Greater Toronto Area Task Force. His lecture tours have included Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, South Africa and Italy. Eha Naylor Principal – ENVision – The Hough Group Limited Eha Naylor, B.L.A., M.B.A., OALA, FCSLA is a Principal of ENVision — the Hough Group, a Toronto-based landscape architecture and environmental planning firm with clients throughout Canada and abroad. Her 29 years of consulting experience reflect a diversity of expertise in environmental planning and site design for both the public and private sectors, which has earned her numerous professional awards of recognition. She is a member of several professional associations, such as the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects, the American Society of Landscape Architects, the Canadian Urban Institute, the Ontario Association of Landscape Architects and the Ontario Professional Planners Institute. In 2000, she was named fellow of the Canadian Society of Landscape Architects. Eha has served on several professional committees, design juries and has also appeared as an environmental planning expert witness for the Ontario Municipal Board. She continues to lecture at a number of Canadian universities and, since 2004, has been a member of the University of Toronto Faculty Council for the John Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design. She has served on several committees for the Washington based Council of Landscape Architectural Registration Boards and received the Presidential Recognition Award for her efforts. Eha is currently appointed to the Canadian federal government’s National Capital Commission Advisory Committee for Planning and Design. She has served on design competition panels in the City of Toronto and the urban design awards jury for the Design Exchange/National Post, Town of Oakville and Town of Markham. Michael Van Valkenburgh Principal – Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates Inc. Michael Van Valkenburgh is Principal of Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, landscape architects and urban designers, founded in 1982. Michael also is the Charles Eliot Professor in Practice of Landscape Architecture at the Harvard University Graduate School of Design, where he has taught since 1982. His firm leads the Lower Don Lands Study for Waterfront Toronto and they designed the Don River Park in the West Don Lands, soon to be under construction.  SPONSORS MEDIA GOLD THE CARPENTERS’ UNION SILVER IN-KIND  toronto.ca/tuda 09 1012