Keen-eyed reader questions Therme redesign reporting

The height and scale of the province’s Therme Spa project are among the many features that critics have seized upon since the plans were first made public.

For background, as has already been reported extensively in this newspaper and elsewhere, the proposed redevelopment of the mostly provincially owned lands at Ontario Place envisions the creation on the West Island of a private entertainment, water recreation and wellness facility — a spa.

Therme, the Austria-based company behind the plan, says upon completion its facility will offer thermal bathing and steam rooms, a waterpark, communal pools, waterslides and more. The company says the project is based on its belief in the “power of water to bring people together.”

Except for the Budweiser music venue and a few other features, Ontario Place is largely closed and has been for over a decade. It has not been easy coming up with a much-needed revitalization plan for this location.

In Toronto we’ve successfully oriented the Harbourfront area east of Ontario Place, but I can’t help thinking of other prime waterfront destinations I’ve been to in other cities — London’s waterfront, the National Harbour outside Washington D.C., Chicago’s Navy Pier and the Old Port area in Montreal. These cities have found winning ingredients for their waterfronts.

But is a spa the right formula for an Ontario Place facelift?

Critics of the $350 million Therme project include the City of Toronto and Mayor Olivia Chow and the community group Ontario Place for All. They have many concerns — including plans to cut down hundreds of mature trees — Therme says it would replant 3,000 trees — a massive underground parking lot, a large subsidy from the province toward the project and more.

Ontario Place for All has stated publicly that it will consider legal action if necessary to stop the cutting down of trees.

In addition, the Star, in an editorial, has taken the position that the Therme project is better suited elsewhere — even on the other side of Lake Shore Boulevard “on one of the asphalt expanses on the Exhibition grounds.”

This would leave all of the West Island as publicly accessible waterfront space, the editorial said.

All of these points, most of them raised in public consultations on the project, are germane and have given Therme pause. As a result, responding to this tough criticism, the company has come back with revisions, which takes me to the main point of this column — that the Therme spa project is complex and not always an easy one to explain to readers in our stories.

We’ve reported, for example, that in its revamp, Therme has reduced one of the structures in its spa proposal from 45 metres high down to 22 metres.

After reading this, one reader took another look at Therme’s latest plan and emailed my office to say: “the way it is presented in the applicant’s revised design documents is that the highest point was 45 metres high, but the highest point of the building in the new design is still at 41 metres high.”

I reached out to Therme for clarification.

Simon Bredin, senior spokesperson for Therme Group Canada, offered this explanation: “Depending on the section, the reduction ranges from an original 45 metres to either 41 metres, 36 metres or 22 metres.”

Bredin went on to say that in our reporting we quoted architects for the project discussing the “midpoint” of the building which was reduced from 45 metres to 22 metres.

He went on to explain that there’s been a “range” of reductions in heights in the revised plans.

So, the Star reader is correct here. There’s still a high point that’s 41 metres tall.

I asked Prof. Paul Floerke, associate chair, graduate studies, in the department of architectural science at Toronto Metropolitan University to take a look at Therme’s updated plan and drawings and he told me that while the “whole mass” of the project has been compressed, the images depict “undulating and varying heights” — different from a typical highrise building’s “box shape” that we might commonly picture in our heads.

“So, it’s not that a 46-metre high building has been reduced to 22 metres — but the varying heights have been reduced to 41 metres through the landscape, down to 22 metres — picture an up and down movement,” Floerke went on to say. “Because it’s a complex design, it’s hard to grasp the dimensions.”

Wise input as we keep a watchful eye on a project that could transform Ontario Place for decades to come.