français

|

Team

|

Copyrights

|

Contact

|

Help

|

Partners

français

233 competitions documented	472 competitions listed
6 087 projects	62 590 documents

PUBLICATIONS + OPEN ACCESS

Competitor

Stoss + nArchitects + ZAS Architects

Mention

Jack Layton Ferry Terminal and Harbour Square Park / Gare maritime Jack Layton et parc Harbour Square

PDF presentation

Loading WEBGL 3D ...

GENERAL INFORMATION ON THE COMPETITOR

Competitor	Stoss Landscape Urbanism
	www.stoss.net

	Zas Architects
	zasa.com/

	nARCHITECTS
	narchitects.com/


Distinction	Mention
Doc. level	75%

Description

Cloud Park is a proposal for revitalizing Harbour Square Park and the Jack Layton Ferry Terminal. The resigned park re-established the city's direct physical and visual linkages to Lake Ontario, the Harbour, and the Harbour Islands, while creating a compelling, ethereal, and oneof- a-kind public space for Toronto's waterfront. It also re-works and greatly enhances the visitor experience of those using the island ferries by fully integrating the terminal buildings and functions into the verdant and active park.

As inspiring as it is pragmatic, Cloud Park represents the next generation of integrated open space and infrastructure projects, and a bold and distinct complement to Sugar Beach, the Wave Decks, HTO Park, and the many other recent spaces along Toronto's spectacular Harbourfront.

The park and ferry terminal site itself was once water; its current state as apparent solid ground is pure fantasy. We want to reclaim water's space within the city, and to reclaim the sometimes subtle but occasionally dramatic forces that once characterized this place--all the while acknowledging the powerful and creative and provocative influences that humans and their technologies have had for generations

The islands are a place like no other. Still in the city, yet a world apart. They've been home to unique communities for generations, yet they have long offered Torontonians an escape from the city--a place out there, fully enmeshed in the rich environment of land and water, and year-round outdoor lifestyles that this place affords. The islands are also the place of spectacle and amusement, of horses jumping into the lake, of biplanes, trains, gondolas, and roller-coasters. Our site is the gateway to this special place, and a gateway to the city for island residents and visitors. We want the richness and quirkiness of the islands to resonate in the park.

The first priority is to physically and visually re-connect the city to the harbour, and to fully re-establish the park as the premier portal and viewport to the islands. Open the Bay Street view corridor, establish direct visual connections to the ferry terminal building and the ferries, in order to make way finding obvious. And create as many different places--high and low, near and far, sheltered and exposed--to see and experience the magic of Toronto's greatest natural resource.

We envision a complete immersion of terminal functions with park activities, so that the park is positively activated by passengers coming and going, and ferry arrivals and departures occur within a lush and dynamic landscape.

We believe the park and the land-side operations of the terminal should be wholly reconsidered and integrated with one another. The park can be designed to function both as a destination for new waterfront activities and as a ceremonial gateway for passing through to the islands or downtown. This approach allows us to immerse the architecture of the terminal into the landscape of the park, to blur distinctions between built and plantedform, to civilize and make humane the terminal infrastructure.

We want to bring the otherworldly nature of the harbor islands, and the looser cultural attitudes and practices it brings, directly to the edge of downtown. We see the new park as a microcosm of island life, not an extension of the bustling city.

We want to bring the otherworldly nature of the harbor islands, and the looser cultural attitudes and practices it brings, directly to the edge of downtown. We see the new park as a microcosm of island life, not an extension of the bustling city.

We envision a socially active park, both a citywide destination and everyday social space that functions across Toronto's four distinct seasons. We envision a place where you want to be, even in the most severe conditions--that takes advantage of quieter ferry operations to expand park amenities and users. And we want to offer warm places to gather in the winter, and cool places to hang out in the summer--to indulge in ice and steam and cold and heat. To be alive.

More than any of this, we envision a truly unique, spectacular, and fantastical place--otherworldly, phenomenal, and immersive. A place like no other-- a place for the imagination, for sensation, for abandon. A place to free ourselves from social norms, and to indulge in something luxurious and yet ethereal.

(From competition documentation)

Jury Report

The landscape architecture of Cloud Park was greatly admired by the Jury. The sensitive of The Grove shaped with mixed hardwood trees as a green precinct established with clear axial vistas to the water and inform shaded spaces for gathering was strong. A series of undulating hills to the west created a strong natural counterpoint to the urban enclosure of condominium towers. The mist enveloping the bridge over the Bay Street axis, is a poetic responses to existing visual obstructions, although some concerns were raised about impact of different weather conditions and temperatures. The programming of the pools Hot Tub while somewhat complex presented a compelling approach to expending public use to the west precinct of the park. The edges between green lawn and paved plaza presented many places for gathering. The powerful ecology and landscape architecture uniting the site was much discussed by the Jury.

On the other hand the Jury was not convinced by the architecture of the Ferry Terminal pavilions. Small in scale, widely separated and without the reach to address large summer crowds in a protected environment remained a concern. The design of the roof and wall elements of the Terminal was not seen as adequate to the needs of the major public transportation terminal.

(From jury report)

List of accessible documents

96 scanned / 96 viewable

Presentation Panel
Presentation Panel
Presentation Panel
Presentation Panel
Presentation Panel
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Perspective
Site Plan
Plan
Plan
Plan
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Section
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Schema
Reference Image
Reference Image
Reference Image
Reference Image
Reference Image
Reference Image
PDF presentation

IMPORTANT NOTICE : Unless otherwise indicated, photographs of buildings and projects are from professional or institutional archives. All reproduction is prohibited unless authorized by the architects, designers, office managers, consortiums or archives centers concerned. The researchers of the Canada Research Chair in Architecture, Competitions and Mediations of Excellence are not held responsible for any omissions or inaccuracies, but appreciate all comments and pertinent information that will permit necessary modifications during future updates.
info@ccc.umontreal.ca

Production

Partners

Stoss + nArchitects + ZAS Architects

Presentation Panel

01

Presentation Panel

02

Presentation Panel

03

Presentation Panel

04

Presentation Panel

05

Perspective

01

Perspective

02

Perspective

03

Perspective

04

Perspective

05

Perspective

06

Perspective

07

Perspective

08

Perspective

09

Perspective

10

Perspective

11

Perspective

12

Perspective

13

Perspective

14

Perspective

15

Site Plan

01

Plan

01

Plan

Floor Plan Ferry Pavillion

Plan

Second Floor Ferry Pavillion

Section

01

Section

Queling Grove A

Section

Grove Grid Exceptions A

Section

Trees Species Gradient A

Section

The Elements

Section

Tree Size Gradient

Section

Floating Boardwalk

Section

Floating Hotub

Section

Floating Wetland

Section

Floating Pool

Section

Yougne Street Slip Broadwalk

Schema

Vehicular Connections

Schema

Program Distribution

Schema

Terminal as Park

Schema

Transforming the Passenger Experience

Schema