Toronto Waterlink at Pier 27 | 43.89m | 14s | Cityzen | a—A

Yonge Street was begun, in 1796, to link the town of York to the north - a military road to Lake Simcoe through the richly agricultuaral hinterlands, not in order to take people down to Lake Ontario. The site we're discussing - where the landfill meets the lake - dates from the early 1930's when Yonge was extended south. That's some 130 years later.

Yonge Street is Toronto's 'main' street. It makes complete sense to continue its importance down to the lake with a public site. Putting a glass box of rich people there is not a 'better' alternative.
 
More gratuitous hate-the-rich vitriol.

TREB district C1 is way down the list when it comes to the most expensive places to buy a home in our city.
 
unimaginative2 proposes subdividing the site into a minimum of 24 lots - thin slivers of land really - yet somehow wants to see a large institution built there. He has repeatedly railed against "the rich" on this thread and wants to block them from buying there. Yet he wants to see Scaramouche ( one of the most expensive restaurants in the city! ) setting up there. He tries to rewrite history to downplay the significance of Harbour Square.

Actually, all those things he lists, as I read it, are different alternatives that he would like to see for the site. Many of which would be mutually exclusive.

I am more resigned to what's going on, and would be happy enough with what really should be relatively minor changes - if the site plan was tweaked to eliminate the lawns and excessive cul-de-sacs, and a better variety of uses incorporated into the buildings, my objections would be addressed. I'd hardly be able to afford it, but even an expensive restaurant like Scaramouche facing the water would offer some variety, and non-residental traffic into the development. Closer to the beginning of this thread, even you agreed with this criticism (post #116), and I even had cautious optimism about this one until I saw the site plan and the rhetoric from Clewes about creating a public, iconic building that did not reflect the final product (though I like the architecture still, if separated form all the complicating factors that makes me give it a thumbs down).

Harbour Square is significant - it is a huge complex, and includes the Westin hotel and conference centre bunker. But it's widely considered a mistake that should not have been repeated, the iconic complex in the "wall of condos" outcry.

As for FRAM/Port Credit, I like what they did there, and would use elements of that as a model for Yonge Pier if it came to it (like the square bounded by ground-floor retail such as Ten), but as I said, the townhouses would have to go, and I would see the condos higher to the 14 floor max, rather than the 8-12 floors on the SW side of Hurontario and Lakeshore Road.
 
I am more resigned to what's going on, and would be happy enough with what really should be relatively minor changes - if the site plan was tweaked to eliminate the lawns and excessive cul-de-sacs,

I see. So there should be nothing growing near the water is that it? No vegitation, just a parking for the much desired convenience store? And aren't cul-de-sacs just another way to describe the much desired streets to explore and wander about? What with the lake inconveniently sitting there and all, a bunch of cul-de sacs is all that could be built there in the low density student ghetto the city apparently cries out for.
 
Yonge Street is Toronto's 'main' street. It makes complete sense to continue its importance down to the lake with a public site. Putting a glass box of rich people there is not a 'better' alternative.

There already is going to be a public site - the boardwalk, and the marina. Both of which will be used between Victoria Day and Thanksgiving, and will revert to desolation again when the weather turns foul.
 
Sean: In general, I agree about the Harbour Square complex. Despite what unimaginative2 imagines I said, I have never said that I think Harbour Square is a "great" building on this thread. Indeed, I've pointed out that it has faults that more recent developments - such as Pier 27 - have remedied in their design. But it does have retail, a surprising amount of treed green space to the south, a garden roof, and was a pioneering venture that changed expectations for what we can achieve with our harbour land - which was completely derelict at the time it was planned.

I do, however, share AP's concerns over your proposed un-greening of the Pier 27 plan.
 
US: I am pleased we can debate this with thought and civility!

I should have clarified my position, as I don't much care for the private lawns with the private cul-de-sacs (not the Freeland cul-de-sac, which is probably necessary, but the other two), which I think adds the suburban feel and dead space to what should be a very urban and compact neighbourhood. A bit of green is fine, IMO, especially on the public side of the development, where the TWRC mandated boardwalk is going.

So contrary to what AP assumes, I don't want parking, and with eliminating the winding private cul-de-sacs, it could increase the amount of built and/or green space possibilities.

I disagree with unimaginative to an extent about parcelling out the complex too much (it's a small site), as the development can simply be improved. (though if circumstances had allowed the city to put something else on the site, something more public, I would be much happier)
 
US: I am pleased we can debate this with thought and civility!

I should have clarified my position, as I don't much care for the private lawns with the private cul-de-sacs (not the Freeland cul-de-sac, which is probably necessary, but the other two), which I think adds the suburban feel and dead space to what should be a very urban and compact neighbourhood. A bit of green is fine, IMO, especially on the public side of the development, where the TWRC mandated boardwalk is going.

So contrary to what AP assumes, I don't want parking, and with eliminating the winding private cul-de-sacs, it could increase the amount of built and/or green space possibilities.

I disagree with unimaginative to an extent about parcelling out the complex too much (it's a small site), as the development can simply be improved. (though if circumstances had allowed the city to put something else on the site, something more public, I would be much happier)

Then I made the wrong assumption, and think we more or less agree. I'm not opposed to some sort of public building on the waterfront. I just can't think of one that would a) need a new building now b) would bring any more people there than apartments will and c) wouldn't suffer a huge drop off in visitors half the year because Queens Quay is not terribly inviting during the winter.
 
I think we are coming closer to common ground on this, though I'm not sure if we entirely agree yet.

From the beginning, I always maintained the postition that there needs to be something else on site than the nicely-designed condos, and this is why I would like to see a restaurant or two close to the water to give more life to the promenade (not the typical Rabba, Subway or drycleaner, which could even be restricted by the developer, like how these uses are so far banned from the Distillery). I wouldn't be opposed to something "for the rich", like the Scaramouche idea, at the base of one of the towers facing either the Yonge slip or even better, the Lake (and a high-end restaurant would be a destination on to its self, and not so dependant on other nearby uses, almost like the current Scaramouche location). The SW corner is ideal, and could be integrated into the Phase I building. Any retail that faces Queen's Quay would be more susceptable to the typical boring condo retail fare - but a space or two facing towards the water (even in winter, where it can be quite lovely) could be a great place to wine and dine.

Otherwise, with some site plan reconfigurations to eliminate some of the dead space, and put something interesting near the water's edge, I think it can work.
 
I'm not opposed to nice restaurants in any location, and would welcome one with a water view. Knowing people in the business, though, I know how important walk in business is, and dobut that there would be enough to keep a nice place going in the winter, especially in January & February, when people don't go out much anywhere. Presumably, if this area could support fine dining, there would have been something in Queen's Quay Terminal for years.
 
I think Amsterdam could present some interesting lessons and comparisons for Toronto.

When Amsterdam's former portlands were looking not unlike ours do right now, a restaurant was located out there among nothing bus abandoned warehouses appropriately named "The End of the World". It was a popular place, and people would make the trek to dine by the water in an otherwise completely derelict area. When redevelopment of the old portlands occurred, the restaurant was given a new home as the only bit of retail in the base of a fairly exclusive development and is still going strong.

On that same trip I found myself on an island that was located as close to the middle of nowhere that one can get in Amsterdam. You couldn't get there by transit and there were two facilities, the IJberg info centre (which I had gone to see) and a restaurant. At lunchtime on a weekday the restaurant was packed.

I was amazed. Even in Amsterdam, where one is never far from water, people were still willing to travel distances in order to dine by the "lake".

Also worth noting was that with all the promenades, beautiful public courtyards, dense residential, and amazing architecture, the Amsterdam portlands were dead dead dead. But locationally, their old portlands are more comparable to our portlands than to the central waterfront.
 
I agree with many of the recent comments. I never suggested dividing the lot into "a minimum of" 24 blocks. That's obviously absurd on a site this size. I just want streets that people who don't live on the site can comefortably walk down, and indeed have a reason to walk down other than a "boardwalk" lined with townhouses that dead-ends at a sugar refinery.

I obviously don't want a "24 hour institution" (maybe the 24 hour comments are where the 24 block claim came from?) since there are very few that would fit that description. There are any number of institutions that are looking for a new site or just now planning their expansions. What about a land swap with the Aga Khan that would save the Bata building? That's certainly a win for all. Depending on the size of the institution, we should be looking at building more uses on the rest of the site, potentially including residential, commercial and office space. I also want a mix of incomes, both for the residences and the businesses. I'd love to see Scaramouche relocate down there (I always liked them, and I hear they're going to have to look for a new location) but as I mentioned, I'd also want to have a good sandwich place. It should be the kind of place that's attractive to everybody, and with a built form and uses that can be extended to the east and to the north in order to create a real neighbourhood on the waterfront.

I also feel obliged to once again clarify that my criticisms have nothing to do with architecture, they're entirely to do with urban planning. Pier 27 is clearly more attractive than most condos going up today, and I've actually always had a bit of a secret soft spot for Harbour Square's architecture (this coming from a guy who has a place in his heart for the Hudson Bay Centre -- which prompted scarberiankhatru to suggest that I needed to see a cardiologist). The problem is that Harbour Square is a disaster urbanistically, and even though it was the first project down there, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have had the foresight to build something more public on that site. Pier 27 repeats that mistake.
 
( Semi ) group hug time. I guess.

Still, that little scamp unimaginative2 really did say, "this massive site should be carved up into dozens of lots" - which to me means a minimum of 24, no?

There's something beyond the naif - more like totally blonde airhead - in his, "I'll just get on the blower and ask the Aga Kahn if he'll agree to loan us his cultural project for our site if he'll spare the life of the Bata ..." approach to city building. As if the world works like that, duh.

Now, back to the trenches ...

( hey, u2, I left you a voice message the other day, did you get it possum? )
 

Back
Top