Central Waterfront 1950s-70s

[Silence&Motion]

I think you're misunderstanding my intent - I'm not saying it was EVER considered to be great. It's merely how the style/taste evolved - I'm trying to give the context for the project. It was entirely status quo - when you build a tall building in 1970's Toronto, the status quo was precast concrete because (a) it was the most economical technology at the time and (b) it fit into an aesthetic that was also prominent at the time. Just look at the Watercolor (aka the architects' intent). When I say "People went nutso for precast", maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully - it was builders and developers (the ultimate arbiter of the built residential environment) who were nutso for it. Coming from an era of most masonry construction, precast was an incredible system because it required so little labour and so little time to put into place. And it didn't look half bad, because the predominant aesthetic at the time didn't exclude it.

Today, developers and builders are still nutso for the cheapest technologies - window wall is great because it's quick and only needs one trade. Precast is still good because it lasts for ages and it's now cheap to stamp whatever pattern or texture you want into it - hence all the cityplace condos from the last year have precast that's stamped to look like masonry.

Okay, I see what you mean and generally agree with you.

The main points I want to make are these:

1. The area was not as desolate in the early 1970s as people keep saying (see the image Zeiss posted where there is no heavy industry anywhere near Yonge, only grassy fields and parking lots). People did think of the waterfront as a recreational destination, and Harbourfront was attracting hundreds of people everyday during the summers in the mid 1970s (in particular around Bathurst).

2. Yes Habour Square is a product of its time, but it could have very realistically been designed much differently - still with space for parking, still using existing technology and materials - in ways that would have maintained openness between Queen's Quay and the water's edge.

 

[interchange42]

As far as I know - and please correct me if I'm wrong - Harbour Square never won any major architectural honours during its time. If that is the case, then we have very little evidence that many people considered it to be a great project even in its own day.

I'm not aware of it having won any awards…

but I had a high school classmate whose father had a split level, double aspect unit in here, and we all thought it was pretty cool. There aren't many buildings in the city with such interesting floor plans, and it was a sign that more care, or at least a certain flair had been employed in the complex's design. The views, undeniably, were also pretty great.

Sure, the complex has left Queens Quay with major a public realm deficiency—and the parking garage can only be understood as a necessary evil for the complex to exist—but Harbour Square represented confidence in Toronto's ability to reclaim our central waterfront from disused industrial land, and it came at a time when American downtowns were hollowing out. While we would never allow it to be built as is today, it was part of Toronto's "city that works" success and part of what set us apart from the Detroits on the other side of the border.

42

 

[interchange42]

I hate both Harbour Square and the Harbour Castle Hotel but I realize they aren't coming down anytime soon, so why not think of ways to improve them now. I think it would be quite easy to make big improvements to both, especially along Queen's Quay. Why spend all this money for beautifying the street, if we don't improve the two biggest disasters there. Hopefully with Pier 27 and 1 Yonge being redeveloped, it might encourage some much need improvements to the buildings.

That hotel is an embarrassment along Queens Quay. Not only is it dirty and run down but the pedestrian entrance, as well as the car entrance are terrible and need a rethink. If you look closely, you'll see that the entrance is in need of repair. Parts of it is in really bad shape and the parking lot above, is dreadful. The city needs to find some way to force this hotel to renovate along Queens Quay, and the east side facing Pier 27. That hotel conference Centre needs to be redeveloped too. The parking lot at Harbour Square could be renovated too. There is no reason it has to look as bad as it does now.

We may not be able to fix all our problems but we can certainly make the area a whole lot better with a few simple changes.

The money being spent to beautify Queens Quay is important, but you're right, without a reworking of the street realm of these buildings, the street will not be fixed. (And yes, the conference centre should be entirely redeveloped.)

42

 

[interchange42]

Okay, I see what you mean and generally agree with you.

The main points I want to make are these:

1. The area was not as desolate in the early 1970s as people keep saying (see the image Zeiss posted where there is no heavy industry anywhere near Yonge, only grassy fields and parking lots). People did think of the waterfront as a recreational destination, and Harbourfront was attracting hundreds of people everyday during the summers in the mid 1970s (in particular around Bathurst).

2. Yes Habour Square is a product of its time, but it could have very realistically been designed much differently - still with space for parking, still using existing technology and materials - in ways that would have maintained openness between Queen's Quay and the water's edge.

1. (a) No one has used "heavy" to describe the industrial use of the lands down here, but one would describe Redpath that way. It's on the east edge of the photo of course. "Desolate" also seems a tad hyperbolic too, but "unappealing" would not be out of place. There was no fine urban grain down here, nothing that made strolling pleasurable, just, as you say parking lots, and I suppose a grassy field to the west of the Toronto Star building.

1. (b) Can you please state the source of your information re: "Harbourfront was attracting hundreds of people everyday during the summers in the mid 1970s (in particular around Bathurst)." I'm interested in what documentation is available on that.

2. It could have been designed differently to allow views through to the water, but realistically the parking garages would still have been above ground. Instead of a monolithic garage, we would likely have had Miami-style water's edge development here, and that's no more appealing.

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Utterly OT - Personally I think Harbour Square can be improved - there is no compelling reason for demolishing the structure. Just taking a cursory look of the frontage along QQ, I can envision livening up that stretch by consolidating parking access points and filling in some of the "nooks" with additional retail; recladding and maybe taking up the 2nd floor of the parking structure to create a 1.5 height retail space to mirror Waterpark Place; and upgrade the stretch of the waterfront promenade around the complex to WT QQ level of standard. The entire Westin complex on the other hand should be razed to the ground IMO.

AoD

 

[ttk77]

Who would pay for those changes to Harbour Square though? If the condo corp is on the hook for the costs then that could lead to a rather hefty special assessment on the owners. I can't see them agreeing to that.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

ttk:

Well, if these changes lead to an increased revenue stream from the retail unit, then it may work?

AoD

 

[Uncle Teddy]

I imagine there's more than one owner here. There's the hotel and then the condos. The hotel parking area is the worst offender in my mind. But why would the owners of the hotel space care to do anything?

Well, if these changes lead to an increased revenue stream from the retail unit, then it may work?

There isn't much retail income down there right now. Can't see it worth the potential increase to do anything substantial. And I can't see there being much in terms of increase unless they total redo the hotel parking area.

 

[ttk77]

ttk:

Well, if these changes lead to an increased revenue stream from the retail unit, then it may work?

AoD

If they can leverage the future increase in revenue stream to lower the up-front assessment on the owners I can see it working. I'm not sure if/how that would work though. I'm no financial whiz.

 

[Zeiss]

If they can leverage the future increase in revenue stream to lower the up-front assessment on the owners I can see it working. I'm not sure if/how that would work though. I'm no financial whiz.

Don't get me wrong, defending the building doesn't mean that I like the way it looks, I am talking to the management, to the board about it, I want it modernized more than you do. As ugly this part is now, will look even uglier when QQ gets renovated and RBC Waterpark is ready. The retail area under the parking garage is owned by someone who lives in Switzerland, according to the chairman of the board, who is in contact with him, he is not wealthy man but he wants to find way to renovate. The lease holders are the problem for the renovation. The idea is to bring the windows to the edge of the columns, this will increase the rentable space also and increase the rent, this is way they are against it. So, the only way to do it is to wait until everyone's lease expires. The idea of AlvinofDiaspar about taking second floor of the parking garage would be possible in general as the owners of the parking spots can buy new spots from the owners that don't need them.
Interchange42, I realize that the hate comes from the fact that the parking garage creates obstacle and is unpleasant to look at, however I know the building from inside and believe me when I say that the building is much, much nicer. The architect created very interesting plans, most of the apartments are split level with view of the city and the lake.

 

[Silence&Motion]

This is a carry-over post from the "Waterlink at Pier 27" thread. There was a lot of discussion about the particular context in which the Harbour Square development went up in the mid-1970s. My position was that we tend to overestimate how industrial and dreary the central waterfront was in the post-WWII era. Despite the fact that the landfill south of Harbour street was meant to accommodate industrial and shipping activity, it never took hold. The land sat mostly vacant and the water's edge accommodated mostly pleasure boating and the ferry service.

Whether you accept this interpretation or not, it was an interesting period of Toronto's history, so I wanted to share these images that I dug up in the Toronto archives. BTW: I was too young to have any direct experience with the waterfront in those days. My interpretation comes exclusively from archival research.

Late 1940s That looks like the Bank of Nova Scotia Building going up (completed in 1949).

Early 1980s? The "Harbour walk" past the Maple Leaf Mills Silos.

In the mid 1970s, most of the recreational activity was based around Bathurst Quay. Ironically it was more lively back then than it is now in terms of public events, festivals and concerts. Since then it was developed into a quiet residential zone, and an extremely busy airport terminal.

Other images from this period:

I believe this image is from the 1968 central waterfront plans. The city decided that the central waterfront should be a mix of commercial and residential use and that a modern industrial zone should be built to the east (i.e. the portlands and the outer harbour).

The original Harbour Square proposal in full:

And a related proposal for the other side of York street:

By the early 1980s you can see that plans for the water's edge changed quite a bit from the approach used in Harbour Square. The preference was for longer, lower buildings that maintained strong connections between Queen's Quay and the water's edge. This is the same basic approach we see in Waterlink at Pier 27.

 

[Silence&Motion]

My sources are old Globe and Mail articles from the mid-1970s. Unfortunately they are in PDF form with text that can't be copied, but here are a few citations if you can find them yourself (or I'd be happy to e-mail them to you):

1. "Music, clowns, actors open Harbourfront '74" The Globe and Mail; Jul 2, 1974;
2. "What happened to waterfront for the people?" by Martin O'Malley. The Globe and Mail; Jan 14, 1976;
3. "Harbourfront: A great way to spend a summer" The Globe and Mail; Jun 13, 1977;

Anyway, I don't really want to keep arguing about the merits of Harbour Square. Everyone seems to have already formed strong opinions. My point is that I get the sense that people overestimate just how desolate/unpleasant the central waterfront was, probably because we have these images in our mind of the rail yards of the 1920s or those dreary aerial shots from the '60s and '70s like the one posted earlier. I think the central waterfront of the late 1960s should be put in the same category as Downsview Park today: empty fields and parking lots dotted with warehouses.

 

[interchange42]

Great collection of images!

The anal retentive part of me wants to know the years for each, and have them all in chronological order…

42

 

[Silence&Motion]

Thanks! Trust me, I started out trying to do that and quickly gave up.

 

[Goldie]

Late 1940s That looks like the Bank of Nova Scotia Building going up (completed in 1949).

Thanks for that great photo collection, Silence&Motion.

The first photo shows the waterfront as I remember it in the 1940s-50s.

The prime reason to go into that neighbourhood was to board the Island Ferry or the Cayuga steamship for a trip to Niagara.