Central Waterfront 1950s-70s

[Xray_Crystal_Junkie]

No but city planners would have eventually approved it.

 

[RocketAppliances]

So would a lot of other departments.

 

[Silence&Motion]

That's funny, I thought architects designed buildings

City planners should lay out general design guidelines. For instance, an unbroken wall of above-ground parking garages is probably not the best use of waterfront land.

 

[guitarchitect]

City planners should lay out general design guidelines. For instance, an unbroken wall of above-ground parking garages is probably not the best use of waterfront land.

Sure... but do you realize how expensive it is to go underground right next to the lake? The hydrostatic pressure alone requires an incredibly thick slab on the bottom of the parking structure, not to mention the reinforcement required and the amount of waterproofing and reinforcement needed for the walls. Transport yourself back 30 or 40 years, and the building technology wasn't nearly as good or could have even been exponentially more expensive. People also had different sets of priorities, and "designing for cars" was an actual "thing" - the pedestrian experience of the car didn't matter as much, and as others have stated there wasn't really a pedestrian-oriented vision for QQ at the time. Combine all of those factors and it's no surprise that it was designed the way it was at the time - it was the only feasible way to build for cars and also get people living on the waterfront.

Toronto also went nutso for pre-cast concrete buildings for about 20 years (just look at all the buildings from the 60s-80s) because it was a cheap way to get the brutalist aesthetic that was popular at the time, or popular in the recent past when it was built (brutalism really had its time in the 70's, and given that 33 HS was completed in 1978 it was probably started in 1973) - so in some ways Harbor Square was actually a contextual and modern building in its time. Kind of like the window wall buildings at cityplace were in the 90's, being the first highrises built using window wall. Except that precast lasts a lot longer and is a better way to build. But I digress.

Anyway, my dates are probably off but the important thing to understand is that things that are "of" a certain time weren't being built with (or measured up to) the standards that we have evolved to have today. It's important to understand the past so that we can guide future development, but it's unfair to say that people in the past were stupid/inferior/deficient in their profession just because they weren't thinking the way we are now.

 

[ProjectEnd]

 

[guitarchitect]

Dreamy Harbour Square Watercolor

Ah, Architectural Respresentation - deceiving the public since time immemorial

 

[Silence&Motion]

My original point is that we tend to overestimate the extent to which the standards of the early to mid 1970s are different from our own. Keep in mind that while Harbour Square was being planned on the east side of Yonge, the Federal government was trying to build a "harbour walk" on what is now Harbourfront Centre. In fact if you read the documents of what the government was trying to do at the time, it sounds almost exactly the same as what we hear today: reconnecting the waterfront with the people, creating a pedestrian friendly environment, cultural programming, etc. There's also plenty of evidence from back then that people already believed the Gardiner was a mistake.

It's also an overstatement to say that people went nutso for pre-cast concrete, just like no one goes nutso for aluminum spandrel panelling now, despite the fact that it is ubiquitous on Toronto's 21st century buildings. 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.

 

[junctionist]

The only thing I like about the gargantuan condo complex known as Harbour Square is that they positioned the towers so that you can still see the vista of Old City Hall on Bay Street from the harbour. Otherwise, it takes up way too much of our most central waterfront. The massive facades of Harbour Square display little if any creative flair. The beige concrete cladding looks sterile. Queens Quay always had the ferry docks at Bay. To build a large park around the ferry docks and a smaller condo on the site would not have been a stretch of the imagination.

I'd demolish Harbour Square if I could, though I'd consider saving the Westin Harbour Castle, which has a smaller footprint and a creative facade of glass contrasted with floating concrete panels. The circular penthouse structure is also unique in the city. It would need a public promenade along all of the waterfront around it and a redesigned podium to open it up to the public spaces around it instead of being walled off with anonymous windows and blank concrete walls. I'd also demolish the bunker-like conference centre on the north side of Queens Quay, and that pedestrian bridge that blocks views east to what will soon become the beautiful East Bayfront district.

 

[Zeiss]

Just to get idea what the area looked like at the time. The architect is Bregman + Hamann Architects, firm that is around since 1953.
Did the residents needed cars? yes, they did, did they need parking garage? yes they did. Could they go six floors underground / 5 underwater/ ? No, they could not, or even if they could it would have been extremely expensive and not necessary. So it had to be above ground, so please Silence&Motion how you would have it designed? On high columns, or transparent, or may be no parking at all.

 

[Zeiss]

I'd demolish Harbour Square if I could,.

Should we start packing our belongings now or you will demolish it with us inside?

 

[guitarchitect]

My original point is that we tend to overestimate the extent to which the standards of the early to mid 1970s are different from our own. Keep in mind that while Harbour Square was being planned on the east side of Yonge, the Federal government was trying to build a "harbour walk" on what is now Harbourfront Centre. In fact if you read the documents of what the government was trying to do at the time, it sounds almost exactly the same as what we hear today: reconnecting the waterfront with the people, creating a pedestrian friendly environment, cultural programming, etc. There's also plenty of evidence from back then that people already believed the Gardiner was a mistake.

It's also an overstatement to say that people went nutso for pre-cast concrete, just like no one goes nutso for aluminum spandrel panelling now, despite the fact that it is ubiquitous on Toronto's 21st century buildings. 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 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.

 

[Lansdude]

Damn, stirred up the hornet's nest trashing Harbour Square. Actually I had convinced myself they were apartments. I'm done here. I'm sure the dwellings inside are commodious and its dwellers are affable.

I'm quite aware of the wasteland this area was before these colonizing projects started to be built. I appreciate that role. But for that I still think on today's horizon it is the single-most offensive building in the city from the exterior. And yeah it's fun to use exaggerated language. This slab never killed anyone. (Did it?)

 

[MrSocky]

When you think about the fact when it was built, the waterfront was pretty bad, they probably never imagined people would want to come down there to see the lake. Its just unfortunate we have to live with it now that the area is being built up into a great residential area.

 

[Silence&Motion]

View attachment 15041

Just to get idea what the area looked like at the time. The architect is Bregman + Hamann Architects, firm that is around since 1953.
Did the residents needed cars? yes, they did, did they need parking garage? yes they did. Could they go six floors underground / 5 underwater/ ? No, they could not, or even if they could it would have been extremely expensive and not necessary. So it had to be above ground, so please Silence&Motion how you would have it designed? On high columns, or transparent, or may be no parking at all.

So the ONLY way to build above ground parking was to do it as an unbroken wall spanning from York to Bay?

 

[Torontovibe]

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.