PRODUCT LIBRARY
photographed by cristóbal palma, the building is clad with dark timber boards that enclose a series of private spaces and direct views towards the crashing waves.
the main feature of the design is the huge kitchen, dining and living space that opens out to the pool and the horizon beyond.
the house consists of three separate brick volumes set above a continuous living space on the ground floor.
the renovation preserves the original masonry façade but carves out a new world inside, one which prioritizes light, space and openness.
I’d be more inclined to agree with chuanha if it wasn’t for the sheer volume of development happening nearly on top of the expressway between the Canary District/River City all the way to Lib Village. I think the number of parking lots around the highway that have been flagged for residential and commercial development would benefit greatly from a project like this, in that a blue sky outcome would physically connect these structures to the ribbon. As a resident who lives next to the highway downtown, i can comfortably say that most locals wish there was a non-carbon dioxide/under concrete/fume trapping way to walk or cycle either west to the parks and ex or east to the parks along the lower river. I just feel a project of this scope is a great idea, but will face so much red tape it will either never see the light of day or be severely compromised by the time it was finished.
it lacks all the things that make NYC’s Highline exciting (ie: great architecture, an interesting history).
But to contend what chuanha1 claims… It’s clear s/he’s never seen the park that toronto is ripping off, an incredible example of removal and simultaneous immersion in the city beyond ground level.
Everyone is going to go for the Highline Rip-off, and all of them will be rubbish
Instead, why don’t we make the experience at ground level this good. Add landscaping and a bike lane next to Lakeshore blvd. Keep the Gardiner expressway in the air where it is, and develop the property adjacent to it.
I agree with chuanha1. This typology just doesn’t work.
I think we saw pretty clearly in the 20th century that these types of projects don’t work. This park/path is too far removed from the life of the city. It won’t have enough people in it to be safe for pedestrians, and except for a few commuters it won’t be useful to bikers. Who is going to get up on this thing just to go a few blocks?
The priorities in this type of design are all wrong. Pedestrian/bike zones, green space, and public transit should take priority at street level, where the city’s businesses and residences are, and cars should be the ones to be separated out or potentially inconvenienced.
Really great idea!!!