Winners of the Open Ideas Competition 2003

The Winners, Honourable Mentions and Finalists
The jury chose 10 entries from among 127 entries: two winners, three honourable mentions, and 5 other finalists. This required a re-allocation of the prize money advertised in the Competition Brief, as follows:

The 3 honourable mentions will get $500 each
The 2 winners will split the prize money originally allocated for the winner and runner-up ($5000 and $1500, respectively), so that each gets $3000;
The remaining $500 will be allocated to the 5 other finalists in the short-list ($100 each).

The jurors evaluated the entries based on the following criteria (which were outlined in the Competition Brief): heritage preservation, community integration, reducing stigma, interest and beauty, pleasant and safe open spaces, impact on both sides of the wall, maintenance.

Winners

The jury chose two winning ideas. Both addressed many of the criteria and presented simple, clear, artful and creative ideas that respected the heritage importance of the wall while introducing permeability into the site, incorporating beauty into the public realm, and providing the sense that the wall belongs to the clients, to CAMH, and to the community as a whole. The winning entries are described below.

Design by Carlos Moreno and Cassie Kent (Number 56):
This entry is a beautiful concept whose main idea is to replace select bricks with glass containing fibre optic lighting, embossed with the first names and last initials of patients who built the wall. The jury felt that this idea provides a strong commemoration of the clients but respects their confidentiality. The idea also supports psychiatric consumer/ survivor involvement in the proposal, which was a common theme among many entries. The concept also included honouring the winners of CAMH's Courage to Come Back Awards, lighting, marking the original location of the walls, and a bridge and special paving along a new pedestrian opening to Shaw Park. Rounded glass markers flanking the bridge were the only elements of the concept that did not fully capture the interest of the jury.

Designed by Janet Rosenberg and Glenn Herman with art work provided by Lynn Donoghue (Number 88):
This entry is a simple but visually striking concept that sets back sections of the wall, shifting them into the park, providing permeability, a sense of welcoming space, and sightlines into the site, while at the same time preserving the wall. A track system between the gaps in the wall would allow the wall to become a venue for the display of art. Parts of the wall are embedded with glass lenses to radiate light, which was a common theme captured by many of the entries. The boldest part of the concept was to mount the set back wall sections on wheels to make them moveable. The jury felt that this one aspect of the concept was impractical, but were sufficiently impressed with the overall idea to choose it as a winner.

The jury hopes that the final design will incorporate the best elements of both winners, including commemoration of those who built the wall and those who have overcome challenges, lighting of names within selected bricks, consumer/survivor empowerment through the project, openness and improved sightlines, and the potential for displaying art on the wall or within the adjacent open spaces.

Honourable Mentions

Designed by Robert Lind DeFries (Number 4):
This entry was eloquently articulated in words. The idea was to have a plaque on each brick with names and dates of clients both past and present. The idea included the common theme of lights to illuminate the wall. The entry represented remembrance and heritage; the jury felt that it was a first-rate idea that could benefit from some further detail and refinement.

Directed by by Diana Hamilton and Michael Mohelsky with team members Dalia Copelowitz, Nuno Moreira and Monica Polo (Number 42):
This entry proposed cutting the wall into sections and placing them on angles into the site, and incorporating glass to cap and enclose parts of the wall. The idea includes a fountain and benches along the wall in Shaw Park, as well as creating places for art south of the park. The jury was quite captivated by an image that showed only one section of the wall angled into the site, which illustrated that the wall could be made permeable and inviting, and was no longer needed to keep people in or out of the CAMH site. However, the jury felt that overall, this particular concept represented too much intervention, and that the glass enclosures could be eliminated and still preserve the intent of the idea.

Designed by Mike Knox (Number 84): This entry was a simple, elegant concept that the jury felt was the best representation of a number of common themes. The idea included the planting of vines and other plants on and along the wall, regularly-spaced lights on top of the wall to provide illumination, and benches for seating. The idea also included a dedication to commemorate the clients who built the wall.

Finalists

Designed by Sony Rai (Number 16):
Making the wall permeable by transforming it into a series of arches was an idea that was presented in a number of the competition entries. Number 16 provided the most refined and attractive representation of this concept. This particular entry proposed elegantly-proportioned arches of consistent height along Queen Street and along Shaw Street, with a larger, "gateway" arch at the corner of Queen and Shaw to make a grand entrance to the park.

Designed by David Orsini, Steven Russell and Gene Threndyle (Number 26):
This entry presented an eloquent argument to preserve the wall in its entirety, to retain its importance as a historic marker and monument. The entry proposed that the wall along the north end of Shaw Park be rebuilt to its original height, and proposed an Orchid House — a conservatory/ greenhouse/ café staffed by consumers/survivors, with a terrace, lotus pond and fountain.

Designed by Julius Caesar Aquino (Number 32):
This entry was a creative, technologically advanced idea for an interpretive, interactive holographic wall. In this concept, the wall would be removed except for the buttresses. At night, the space between the buttresses would be filled with glowing holographic images that would change in response to the presence of people near the wall. The jury liked the idea of the holographs, but felt that the concept could also work well if more of the wall was retained intact.

Designer unknown (Number 64):
This entry was focused on educating the public about the historic and human significance of the wall. It proposed that there be no changes to the wall. Very large educational murals depicting patient labour, by an artist who is a CAMH client or consumer/survivor, would be placed on the new buildings adjacent to the private open space south of Shaw Park.

Design directed by Diana Hamilton and Michael Mohelsky with team members Paulo Martins and Marcel Dion (Number 86).
This entry retained the wall but reinterpreted it as a piece of public art. This elegant concept draped translucent blue acrylic curved panels over wall, backlit to create an urban sculpture.

Next Steps

This was an Ideas Competition, and therefore the entries proposed ideas, rather than detailed finalized designs. The best aspects of the two winning ideas, and perhaps some elements from the honourable mention and finalist entries, will need to be further refined by CAMH and its architects, in consultation with City of Toronto Heritage Preservation Services, Councillor Joe Pantalone, and with the input of the Competition winners.