Today Fri Sat
It is forcast to be Clear at 10:00 PM EST on February 09, 2012
Clear
3°/-11°
It is forcast to be Mostly Cloudy at 10:00 PM EST on February 10, 2012
Mostly Cloudy
-8°/-14°
It is forcast to be Partly Cloudy at 10:00 PM EST on February 11, 2012
Partly Cloudy
-4°/-8°

38 Comments

news

A Linear Park in the Sky?

Globe_badge_1.gif

20091204gardiner_lead.jpg
The Gardiner Expressway has become Toronto’s great quagmire. The elevated, concrete traffic artery has sliced through the downtown core since 1965, and has been the bane of urban planners, real-estate developers, environmentalists, and commuters ever since. The debate over how to update the decaying structure is a heated one. Should we tear it down? Repair it? Build under it? Around it? Through it? How about on top of it?
Quadrangle Architects, the Toronto-based architectural firm responsible for the BMW building near Eastern Avenue and the Candy Factory Lofts in Liberty Village, has proposed building what they call a “Green Ribbon”—a seven kilometre green roof constructed on top of the existing highway. The Green Ribbon, first unveiled by the company at IdeaCity earlier this year, was one of many urban planning ideas discussed at Construct Canada, a trade expo and conference held at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre from December 1–4.


20091204greenribbon2.jpg
During the “Greening the Gardiner” panel discussion yesterday morning, founder and principal of Quandrangle, Les Klein, said this “linear park in the sky” would feature paths for walking, biking, and rollerblading; a lush landscape of grass, shrubs, and trees; concession stands; and washrooms just in case you can’t make it back to the mainland in time. There’s even talk of creating skate and ski paths in the winter. Adding solar panels and wind turbines would generate enough energy to power all three levels—street, highway, and roof.
20091204greenribbon4.jpg
The glass veils on either side would provide extra safety, and direct much of the noise and exhaust pollution away from the park-goers above.
In terms of access, there would be staircases at every major intersection, zig-zag ramps at busier entrance points, gradual slopes at each end, and possibly connections to the dozens of condos springing up in the adjacent areas.
Former Mayor of Toronto David Crombie said that the Gardiner “will always be a transmission belt for automobiles. But we need to find new designs for roads and streets, large and small, that accommodate new vehicles for mobility…and redesign them so they’re human.”
20091204greenribbon1.jpg
That sounds all well and good for up top, but what about underneath the great structure? It’s one of the most inhospitable areas in the downtown core. Calvin Brook of Brook McIlroy Inc., an urban planning and design firm, calls this region “a blind spot in our collective understanding of civic space.” But he says we can create landmark gateways to the waterfront, replacing the wasteland that exists today. Open-air markets, skateboard parks, new lighting, public art, and gardens can revolutionize this inhabitable space.
Greg Kalil, managing director at Brookfield Financial, said, “tolling is really the only way to actually pay for this…so it’s probably not going to be politically popular.” And, if the city’s pockets run dry, they can always turn to private sponsorship. How does “Tim Horton’s Green Ribbon” sound?
20091204greenribbon5.jpg
Yes, the whole idea appears a bit crazy, but there is precedent elsewhere in the world. The High Line on New York’s west side and the Promenade Plantée in Paris are just two examples of other elevated urban parks.
Klein said putting the roadway on the ground level is an absurd idea. “The idea of taking down the two hundred thousand cars a day onto a surface roadway would create a huge obstacle to the waterfront, not to mention endless traffic jams, frustrated drivers and pedestrians…and still not deal with the railroads which actually are an obstacle to the waterfront.” It’s estimated that the cost to demolish the existing structure would be twice as much as the cost to build the Green Ribbon.
“It’s undeniable that the Gardiner Expressway is an essential part of providing access in and out of the city, and it deserves a better and more creative fate than demolition and relegation to a landfill site,” Klein added. “It deserves and demands creative, adaptive reuse.”
Follow GreenRibbonTO on Twitter to keep up with the proposal’s progress.
All images by Quadrangle Architects Limited

Comments

  • rek

    I swear I read about this here before.
    It would be even more of a visual barrier, just as much a physical barrier, and be useless in the winter.

  • http://www.torontoist.com David Topping

    We also wrote about the proposal after it was unveiled at IdeaCity in June, though it seems to have progressed a bit since then!

  • http://undefined davedave

    SEVEN kilometers? Christ this thing would cost billions.
    rek – if the continuous walkway were designed right (i.e. wide enough) in the winter it could become a skating route like the Rideau canal…Not sure I buy the visual barrier argument.
    I’m torn on the idea. It smells like monorail folly.

  • http://undefined MariaPD

    I wonder about access to the park/greenbelt. We’ll have to climb up all the way there? What about those with mobility issues?
    Also, I’m pretty sure those who live in the condos next to the Gardiner who are currently just above the highway level would not like to look out their window and see the structure. That’s gonna be an issue.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    The High Line and the Promenade Plantée are not precedents, and it kills me when they’re cited as such. Both were disused when they were rehabilitated, and in both cases the changes eliminated the old infrastructure.
    Engineering considerations (“reality”) show Mr. Klein’s cost claims to be wild speculation. This thing will have a lower live load (pedestrians vs. vehicles) but much higher dead load (trees, enough soil for them to grow in, snow, etc.). The span is roughly 20 metres, versus 10 or less for the two halves of the Gardiner. Yet the structure is shown, in section, at one third the thickness of the highway. Since grey denotes concrete, are Light Blue and Gold-ish Yellow supposed to be new supermaterials that will make this possible?
    In reality, would be cheaper and better to simply bury the highway than build the monstrosity this would turn into if it had to be safely built.

  • http://undefined friend68

    Wow, I hope that firm gets some paying jobs soon, so they can quit getting their staff to draw this folly.

  • http://undefined Peter K

    I’m not sure how practical this is, but it’s a better idea than getting rid of it entirely. The Gardiner is the only freeway artery serving downtown and it cannot be simply torn down without some sort of alternative roadway being built to pick up the load.

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    the Promenade Plantée in Paris and the High Line in NYC are repurposed routes. This plan above is to keep the Gardiner running and build a park above it. I don’t think the 2 can be compared. A better example is Ginza-9 in Tokyo that has 100% infill of space below a central urban expressway. I don’t know if this link will work, but try:
    http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Toronto,+Toronto+Division,+Ontario,+Canada&ll=35.667865,139.761645&spn=0.00146,0.004812&t=k&z=18&layer=c&cbll=35.668026,139.759977&panoid=tBnLWBpKJhCRMoKoK_-nlQ&cbp=11,266.1,,0,4
    Along the south side are shops and restaurants under the expressway, and to the north is the most expensive retail and commercial district in the world: The Ginza.

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    The firm actually is a leader in Toronto and has many, many excellent projects completed. Check out their website. I imagine this design was an exercise, and the architects don’t really think it will be built.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    The link works, and that’s pretty neat. Though I hope to see the Gardiner buried, this is most likely what we’ll wind up with.

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    Paul, you beat me to it, indeed the Gardiner is not comparable to the High Line and the Promenade. Check out my link below to Ginza-9 … what do you think?

  • http://undefined Mark Ostler

    If I remember correctly from Klein’s ideaCity presentation, they’re proposing ramps as well as staircases. Can’t remember if escalators or elevators are part of the plan.

  • http://undefined Ryan Coleman

    As impractical as the idea is, I’m just glad to see people trying to find ideas that don’t involve tearing down the Gardiner. It isn’t ever going to happen (Neither is burying it – and it wouldn’t have any effect anyways).
    The reality is as much as many hate the Gardiner there’s also the railroad tracks to consider. They’re just as much of a ‘barrier’ as the Gardiner. At the end of the day, what under the Gardiner needs is a little TLC & Cleanup (i.e. take a look at under the Gardiner @ Bay – between the ACC, the new condos and the aesthetic tweaks they’ve made you barely notice the Gardiner anymore.

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    Yeah, if we infilled beneath the Gardiner, and also built beautiful pedestrian walkways through to the waterfront, it’d be a big improvement. The walkways need to be bright, high quality materials like granite, and heated with geothermal to remove snow as it falls. Also possibly glass barriers to the roadway to abate noise and pollution for pedestrians.

  • http://undefined TokyoTuds

    Oh, I see that Bay now has glass barriers along the sidewalk … I’ll have to walk it and check it out sometime soon.

  • http://undefined mark.

    I don’t think this is a good idea. Without subjecting you to too much theory, I’d simply say that life happens at street level and that I don’t think this raised public space would be used that much.
    If I were king, I’d eliminate traffic on the ground level and turn that into public space.

  • http://paul.kishimoto.name Paul Kishimoto

    If Mr. Klein doesn’t expect it will be built and this is simply a promotional exercise for his firm, then he should be more responsible than to cloud the public debate by denigrating more realistic solutions.

  • http://piorkowski.ca/ qviri

    Would a ramp even be practical? Look how long the car access ramps in place now are, then provide for five extra metres in vertical distance and shallower slope because humans don’t have engines. To get to the park at Spadina you’d have to get on the Bay ramp…

  • http://piorkowski.ca/ qviri

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the High Line also lower than even the automobile deck of the Gardiner?

  • http://www.blog.canoe.ca/canoedossier David Newland

    A park that you need to climb up to, via a small number of access points, maintained by whom, policed by whom? Welcome to the gang zone.
    The notion that we’d need to maintain the Gardiner even without cars, just to support a giant weird park with all kinds of inherent planning and social issues of its own is just too bizarre.
    Take an equivalent amount of money and buy a bunch of carparks, turn them into people parks. Rehabilitate brownlands. Create green roofs. Do practical local little parks every time a neighbourhood is redeveloped.
    Goodbye, yellow brick road. Hello, something intuitive and simple that people already want and need, close to home, with predictable positive consequences for real people in actual neighbourhoods.

  • http://undefined dowlingm

    Deck over the parts of the Gardiner/railway corridor which are below grade in the west part of downtown (and once that’s done, do the same for the Allen per Eb Zeidler’s idea).
    Once that’s done – which will have an added effect of joining currently severed neighbourhoods we can talk about roofing the elevated section.

  • http://undefined Nick

    It’s a completely ridiculous idea. I agree with Mark and David above. Who’d want to climb up more than a 100 stairs to get to the top (not exactly family-friendly), only to breath in exhaust fumes and be accosted by road noise (engineering solutions notwithstanding).
    Tear down the Gardiner and have a boulevard (not intended to accomodate all the Gardiner vehicle) at ground level – the 200,000 cars will go somewhere else, the flip of the motto “build it and they will come” (i.e. get rid of it and they will go). It worked in Seoul:
    http://www.planetizen.com/node/22474

  • http://undefined Mark Ostler

    Don’t know. I just recall something along those lines was mentioned when I saw the original presentation. Again, that was months ago at ideaCity, but if my memory serves me well, the ramps would be of the zig-zag variety, like those connecting the Goodman trail and the bridge over Lakeshore Blvd West, at the foot of Roncesvalles.

  • TokyoTuds

    Again we agree Paul. Apparently Mr. Klein first presented this at IdeaCity which was created by that “out of the box thinker” Moses Znaimer, whom I admire in many ways. So the idea I think was meant to be out there, stimulate discussion, and entertain all at once. So, I don’t think he is saying, “here is the solution”. I think he is saying, “let’s brainstorm, and here is my example to signal to you that no idea is too crazy to suggest during this discovery stage.”

  • http://undefined juan13

    For those interested in a much more grandiose vision of what to do with the Gardiner, and much more comprehensive than Quadrangle Architects’ suggestion, check out this site:
    http://www.toviaduct.com/Home.html

  • http://undefined mlr

    The Viaduct solution at least took into account the issue of the rail line. In the pic supplied at the top of this article, the rail line practically JUMPS off the page at you. The Gardiner alone is not the problem. Both corridors together are.
    Putting one on top of the other, with a public space between (which would essentially BE at street level) seems like a place to start.
    This Green Ribbon nonsense isn’t in the same category.

  • TokyoTuds

    Yes, Nick, right on! It is well established that adding lanes induces heavier traffic, and the short term gain in less congestion is lost within 6 months to increased traffic. The reverse is also proven, that when lanes are reduced congestion is reduced. There is a lot of good research on this at Canada’s own Victoria Transport Policy institute.
    http://www.vtpi.org/

  • TokyoTuds

    Fascinating, I like the idea and it is within the realm of possibility.

  • rek

    I’ve been to Cheonggyecheon many times, and it’s just beautiful. There’s an open-air art gallery under the road, accessed via an opening under one of the bridges, waterfalls, stepping stones, historical plaques and recreations of engravings (were they engravings… I can’t remember now).

  • http://undefined warmflash

    Of course there would be crime and gangs in the park. But there is crime and gangs everywhere in the city already.
    Gangs like to have a quick getaway. Sky Park would hinder that. So I’m not sure how popular Sky Park would be with gangs.
    I would imagine Sky Park would employ an unprecedented number of security cameras.
    Downtown Relief Line.
    Could the DRF be incorporated into SKY PARK?
    Probably.
    It would be a seaside subway ride. And would probably be quite popular among tourists, retirees, the unemployed and hundreds of songwriters, as well as writers in general.
    In which case perhaps they should call it SONG PARK.

  • http://undefined andrews

    Although the heights and limited access points are a concern, let’s compare it to the ravines, which are quite popular, have similar elevation changes between them and the surrounding area (down vs. up though) and have rather limited access.
    I can see something like this would be quite popular with joggers and dog owners, but they’re already the heaviest users of parks/ravines. If you make the ramps linear (NOT zig-zag!) with a fairly shallow grade you’d probably get a fair bit of through traffic as well as recreational traffic.
    Practical constraints aside, this idea is intriguing.

  • http://undefined Solex

    All of this is amazing and even good, but what do you do about the trucks that have to come into the city bringing goods and foodstuffs? How will those vehicles get into the city, and what’s the solution that the people behind this idea have for this problem?

    Practical constraints aside

    Those will have to be taken into consideration a whole lot, especially with the right-wing media and populace that also live in Toronto, and who make their voice heard on everything in the online commentary forums of the big news dailies (Toronto Star, Sun, Globe & Mail, National Post), to say nothing of the right-wing neocon cabal at City Hall that might still win the next municipal election.

  • http://undefined mlr

    Imagine that, a constituency of voters making their views heard. How dare they. Who do they think they are, taxpayers or something? Cet animal est tres mechant; Quand on l’attaque il se defend.

  • rek

    Trucks are a partisan issue now?

  • http://undefined rek

    How can you not “buy” that it would be a visual barrier? The rendering cross-section above shows it extending nearly 8 storeys above the deck. Offices and condos with view of the lake or downtown instantly become offices and condos with view of pylons and ramps.
    Plus I can only imagine the light pollution this thing would put off.

  • http://undefined Solex

    Well no, not really, but somebody will make them an issue if these concepts are brought to life, for whatever reason . You know how people can be. As I said before, I have no problem with these proposals.

  • http://undefined mark.

    I think you raise a really good point – many people will invoke ‘common-sense’ arguments, seeing any alteration (hopefully, reduction!) to the highway as pointless or ‘wrongheaded,’ and argue there should be more lanes to deal with congestion, etc. I think people who want do or support more ‘progressive projects’ should be arming themselves with facts, research and reports to dispell common, unfounded beliefs. Especially with an election on the horizon.

  • http://undefined Darren

    When are we going to learn that greenroofs cost more in construction and maintenance then what we are being told???