Hafencity and Harbourfront

Recently I was in Hamburg and took a stroll through the beginnings of their massive waterfront redevelopment, Hafencity. I'm always willing to believe the best of developments before I go and see them myself, but from the bits of Hafencity I saw I was very unimpressed and it makes me wonder what people mean when they say "waterfront development".

To be fair:

1) the project is just beginning
2) There is lots of construction around, so it's a bit unpleasant to walk in.
3) If retail is eventually to be there, it almost completely absent right now.

So the whole area is a bit bleak. But from the one more or less completed row of new development, which consists of a series of box-like office buildings along the south side of Sandtorkai, I was astonished at how unpleasant I thought it was. Some of the buildings were great, but the entire length of the street was given over to a concrete wall punctuated by garage entrances. Clearly, pededestrians have no place walking along Sandtorkai, and they never will. A series of raised walkways along Sandtorkai are where pedestrian space has meant to be. The street has all the charm of, say, Wood Street.

On the water side of Sandtorkai, there is a long concrete walkway with a long concrete wall (the other side of the parking garages). The box-like buildings hang over this walkway. I can't imagine a more unpleasant place to walk. I wonder if Hamburgians are talking about this row of buildings as blocking the waterfront, somehow, I imagine not.

There are a number of very long and very beautiful old warehouse buildings, and if these are integrated into the development in some way they will be interesting. Right now there's not much in them (except a cheap "Dungeon" museum). What I found odd is that the raised walkways in some cases run only a foot away from the second or third floors of these warehouses, but no connection to the warehouse has been made. I found myself a foot away from a window with a woman working, and I thought if there was a door connecting to the walkway you could have a cafe or something, but they hadn't built that in at all. To be fair, the warehouses seem more potential than reality, the only public use I could see was that a few loading bays were open and had a few carpets displayed.

Sometimes I think I travel to feel better about Toronto, but frankly, Harbourfront is looking pretty good for me right now, in terms of the physical layout and the attractions. I am starting to wonder if Torontonians simply don't have the ability to tell themselves as good a story as other cities do. Yes, some of the buildings at Hafencity are hot, but as a whole the neighbourhood seems very car-oriented and bleak.

Here are some photos of Hafencity. Lest I be accused of being
I also threw in some photos of the Berliner Tor Centre, a complex of buildings that was so lovely that I couldn't stop taking photos of it. I love the use of colour that changes with the light, and I bet BuildTO will as well. I also put in a photo of a Jewish Music School that I thought was great, and some rowhouses that are quite attractive, but which also meet the street poorly.

Thanks for the pictures and commentary Archivistower.

The building overhanging the pathway probably sounds like a good idea; however it does not seem inviting at all. If there was a café underneath then maybe that would have helped. I know with the waterfront meetings here, our planners are facing the same dilemma about keeping public spaces useable and active during the cold winter months. I think they are proposing arcades which would have temporary glass walls during the winter months, similar to the arcades at York Univeristy.

As for the raised walkways….I don’t like it. It seems they have given the priority over to the cars and parking.

I would have to agree and that Harbourfront Centre is an outstanding example of waterfront development. However, a walk west on Queen’s Quay you will find we have this brand new community of condos, the Music Garden, community centre/school however very little pedestrian life in this area. Many of the store fronts are empty. The question is what to do? Will we make the same mistakes to the east end of Queen’s Quay?

Louroz

Archvis:

Thanks for the pics and description of "far off places".

The waterfront as they've built it seems desolate and unfriendly to pedestrians - but I wonder what is their rationale for doing what they did. Perhaps they're trying to continue to "industrial" theme of the district? The raised walkway is perhaps a nod to the gantries to ships, etc.

Berliner Tor is amazing, with the liberal use of colour, double facades and all (definitely reminded me of CCBR). The setting seems a little odd though, esp. the shot from a sort of parkish area.

FM:

The building overhanging the pathway probably sounds like a good idea; however it does not seem inviting at all. If there was a café underneath then maybe that would have helped. I know with the waterfront meetings here, our planners are facing the same dilemma about keeping public spaces useable and active during the cold winter months. I think they are proposing arcades which would have temporary glass walls during the winter months, similar to the arcades at York Univeristy.

Click to expand...

The East Bayfront Precinct Plan does account for the use of enclosable arcades along selected routes. I am not 100% sure they'd work in winter however en masse - something worth trying, however.

I would have to agree and that Harbourfront Centre is an outstanding example of waterfront development. However, a walk west on Queen’s Quay you will find we have this brand new community of condos, the Music Garden, community centre/school however very little pedestrian life in this area. Many of the store fronts are empty. The question is what to do? Will we make the same mistakes to the east end of Queen’s Quay?

Click to expand...

The problem, as I see it, has to do with the lack of anchors destinations along QQ. I can't think of any real reason to actually walk in that area other than for purely recreational purposes.

GB

The waterfront as they've built it seems desolate and unfriendly to pedestrians - but I wonder what is their rationale for doing what they did. Perhaps they're trying to continue to "industrial" theme of the district?

More likely just the same old autofriendly modernism, which remains in favour with so many architechts and planners. Toronto's modernistic towers generally fail at the ground level as well. The Hafencity area is just a large collection of particularly brutal examples next to each other. Grade separated streets, separation of pedestrians and auto traffic, separation of the building from its environment and allowing form to follow function with no apologies, (parking/ loading), are all part and parcel of modernism. The streets and waterfront resemble an alleyway, very austere, no pomp and frivolous beauty required.

Well, I'm not sure if Hafencity is that horrible--and it's true; it's all probably just another reflection of our overwrought Harbourfront guilt that we want to read all sorts of miketoronto hyperbole into these "international developments", only to run into a reality that's more mundane/substandard/whatever. And so castles made of sand fall in the sea, eventually. So what. It's now a part of Hamburg. Live with it (or something).

Not that it's anything new, either. Think of the 70s urban redevelopment of Roosevelt Island in NYC; in its day, it was seen as a "humane" advance on spec schlock and towers-in-the-park "projects". Now, while perhaps not exactly a horrifically blighted Brutalist slum (too much of that mitigating St. Lawrence Neighbourhood-esque 70s idealism in place), it's certainly treated as such in the film "Dark Water"...

Just to reiterate a conversation I had with Archivist a few days ago about Hafencity... Hamburg has always been a city that has embraced water. Being Germany's principal port and one of its chief industrial and trading centres - canals, lakes and reservoirs are found throughout the city (much like Amsterdam, another Hanseatic city). For an urban centre that has developed and grown alongside water for thousands of years, residents there don't look at "embracing their urban waterfront" quite the same way we in Toronto do. Toronto, which is a much younger city, has always turned its back on its waterfront, exploiting it for industrial purposes before allowing its citizens to enjoy it. For Toronto, it seems to be about "rediscovering the waterfront and making it accessible to its citizens" – while in Hamburg, the city already has thousands of kilometres of pristine waterfront land which is already very accessible and enjoyed by its populace. Hafencity is one of the old industrial port-warehouse districts... an area of the city that is somewhat isolated from the rest of downtown and at the moment is still relatively poorly connected via public transport. Creating a new mixed-use commercial and residential community is a priority for the area, and although perhaps not perfectly planned, a lot of other exciting projects designed by some of the most gifted architects and urban planners in the world will be completed there within the decade. Like Archivist noted, Hafencity is far from complete.

Much like Cityplace or the Distillery District in Toronto, give Hafencity time and I believe it will become a fantastic and very liveable urban community that was once a busy and thriving industrial section of the city.

On a side note: I think both the high design and superb quality finishing of the individual buildings in Hafencity is far better than most new buildings constructed in Toronto. No surprises there!

One of the exciting new projects currently under construction in Hafencity is the "Living Bridge," designed by Hamburg architect Hadi Teherani. The €324 million, five-story bridge will span the Elbe River and include luxury apartments, shops and other businesses.

The bridge is too cool.

Yes, when comparing waterfronts, it's important to take the context of the city in. I had the distinct feeling when I was looking at Hafencity that I didn't "get it", that is, that my expectation of what I would have found there and what I saw were so incongruous that I couldn't put it together in any substantial way.

Sort of like comparing Vancouver's and Toronto's waterfronts, where quite a bit of Vancouver's is naturalized and never saw industrial activity. Doesn't make sense to compare Toronto's and Vancouver's and expect them to be the same.

One quibble with Dan - there are kilometres of waterfront in Toronto that are accessible, used, and loved by people living in the city. Walk along the beach, the bluffs, have a beer at the Sunnyside Pavilion or walk through the Butterfly conservatory area, and they are filled with people on a nice day. The extent to which Toronto has turned it's back on the waterfront is almost always overstated.

This is what I'm looking forward to seeing... the Elbphilharmonie, a music hall built on top of a warehouse.



Archivistower has made a great point about using context to compare waterfronts. I guess a lot of us been influenced (in part by what we read here and in Toronto Star articles) to think that the Toronto waterfront should be lined with tourist attractions, cultural facilities and high density condo/retail developments, which many cities have done. Many of us really don't consider other alternatives, such as mid-rise and low-rise quiet residential and office neighbourhoods that have been built along Dutch and German urban waterfronts. Building glitzy, tourist-trap waterfront attractions is not the only way to create a successful waterfront.

I've found they don't seem to shy away from urban planning experimentation in Europe, unlike North America, where the fallback to the tried and true after the failure of Modern Planning seems rather complete.

GB

The "Living Bridge" isn't exactly a new idea of course. The first stone London bridge, dating from the early 13th century, had shops, housing and a chapel on it, some buildings up to 7 floors in height. There were so many residents they elected their own alderman until the bridge was cleared of housing in the 18th century. It had 19 arches and the restricted water flow powered grain mills. Fires kept breaking out, and bits of the bridge collapsed over the centuries and had to be replaced, and the whole thing was demolished in the early 19th century.

The "Living Bridge" isn't exactly a new idea of course. The first stone London bridge, dating from the early 13th century, had shops, housing and a chapel on it, some buildings up to 7 floors in height. There were so many residents they elected their own alderman until the bridge was cleared of housing in the 18th century. It had 19 arches and the restricted water flow powered grain mills. Fires kept breaking out, and bits of the bridge collapsed over the centuries and had to be replaced, and the whole thing was demolished in the early 19th century.

Click to expand...

I couldn't find any online, but I've certainly seen old paintings of London along the Thames that showed this.

Any thoughts on where Toronto could do a "living bridge?"

I'm thinking CityPlace could have done one (and still could if they got inventive) over the railway lands. Another possibility might be over the turning basin in the redeveloped Portlands.

"Any thoughts on where Toronto could do a "living bridge?"

The St. Clair to O'Connor (via Bayview) Bridge over the Don Valley?

I think the contextual point of view plays a huge role. North American Waterfronts, generally are more wild, industrial or parkland.

What i see in this project, like a lot of projects around europe, most notebly the former shipping islands in Amsterdam's IJ river, is the possibility to build something but not be disconnected to the rest of the city. There is an automatic integration, whether new or old. Not everything is therefor better, but it does have an advantage in being used right away and does not have to deal with being a lonely annex somewhere off the cities beaten paths...

I cannot speak for or agains the Hafencity project. From the looks of things, they are making a huge effort to make this work- a) by posting such an informative website-(Toronto would follow the route of don't tell, don't ask, and do everything hush hush...as little public involvement as possible).

will have to finish this post later...sorry

p5

Commenting on Hafencity without actually going there - and experiencing the spaces and the effect the buildings create - is fraught with danger.

But my impression is that they're staying true to the industrial history of the area without resorting to the "all mixed use all the time" trap that Toronto has fallen into. Bleakness as opposed to prettiness is part of the history of most former industrial port cities everywhere. The temptation to prettify probably exerts a stronger pull, so staying true to the roots of the industrial city might be a smarter move if Hamburg wants to stand out from the crowd.

I wouldn't mind exploring that waterfront area with the overhanging building, for instance. It would have a different "feel" to it, compared to most other parts of town, I would imagine. As would the raised pedestrian zone, which I assume is characteristic of this district and no other part of Hamburg. Anyone who is bored with homogeneity, and who tends to seek out the unusual, would be interested in places like these, surely?

( Archivist: A cheap "Dungeon" museum? What's that all about? ).