Toronto Corus Quay | ?m | 8s | Waterfront Toronto | Diamond Schmitt

Not to beat a dead horse or anything, but this thing is going-up at a glacial pace. What is going on here? If anything they still have roughly 11.5 months to get this thing done, that is they choose to have it done within the 2009 schedule as the billboard suggests..

p5
 
alright, maybe that example was a little demanding.

my point is, i really liked the renderings of the building, it could have become famous, if not iconic.

anyway, toronto is a very wealthy city and by all rights should be prettier than it is.
 
So every single building in the East Bayfront plan that are on the water's edge should be iconic? I still don't think many people on here have a realistic idea of how reality works.
 
Sydney doesn't have much of a place to actually hear opera because their hall was designed from the outside shell inwards. That's no way to do an opera house, and it's tempting to say that it isn't much of a model for anything we'd want to build here no matter how desperately we crave spectacle - but empty shells can sometimes work for cultural buildings. The Crystal, a local example, has versatile gallery spaces that aren't custom-designed for specific collections - they can house whatever the ROM wants to put in them. Still, it was a hugely expensive way to do a linking wing, and it required massive amounts of construction material for the additional space that was built.

Are we still in an age that sees such extravagance in cultural buildings as appropriate ... or possible? I think the economic meltdown has put quite a damper on things. Besides, what local cultural institutions haven't already built themselves new homes?

The buildings we line the harbour with, such as Corus, are going to be seen from the lake and from the islands and from the waterfront promenade just as much as they will be from the mainland to the north of them - if not more so. Not that it could one-up the CN Tower, but if the RCYC decides to build anew rather than renovating their fine old club house on the island it would be nicely visible from the foot of the city.
 
So every single building in the East Bayfront plan that are on the water's edge should be iconic? I still don't think many people on here have a realistic idea of how reality works.

To jump in on this, I'm going to take a half-way point argument. No, not every development needs to be iconic. It it was like that then it would look like an amusement park and chances are the total sum of all the parts would actually be less than the individual buildings that make up the neighbourhood. Reality aside, too much glitz and glitter can actually be a bad thing.

But I believe their is a strong argument to me be made about the for the first foray into iconic destination creation. And that argument is simple: the the first foray should be iconic and a destination. The problem with the development's lackluster imprint is that it does not captivate or raise the bar. If it is to be a linchpin of waterfront development or if it is to be truly the "first waterfront" centre then surely it should set the tone. If, on the other hand, it were the 5th entry into the neighbourhood then I'm sure the design would fit.

Urbanshocker is right. When all is said and done, the line-up of similar buildings should create a useful collection. But the very infancy of this area there needs to- and indeed should be responsible for- getting it right. What that means exactly is always up for personal judgement. Lackluster, in my opinion, is not up to par.
 
Yeah there definitely is an ideal half-way point between "ICONIC" and "LACKLUSTRE" that most buildings should aim for. This is true.
 
The curtain wall test is not exactly ordinary. However, It's true. It will never resemble the latest Seymour Butts approved novelty
 
Redpath seems to have been very reasonable and conciliatory, but let's face it, their days on the waterfront are numbered. Once the east bayfront is developed, I'm sure they'll be under considerable political pressure to leave.
 
It would be awesome to preserve the building, the cranes and all that. Turn the building into a museum or an entertainment complex, but don't tear it down! It could make a wonderful juxtaposition with all the modern glass buildings around it.
 
Redpath seems to have been very reasonable and conciliatory, but let's face it, their days on the waterfront are numbered. Once the east bayfront is developed, I'm sure they'll be under considerable political pressure to leave.

i've thought the same thing but i'm not sure such a thing would happen. they would certainly have to be heavily compensated to relocate their operations. i'm also guessing, thanks tot he video, they'd need to located by a major body of water.

now, i'm not suggesting that redpath is osgoode hall or anything, but the building does have its role in the city's history. i also tend to agree with their president, that wathcing the ships come in from sugar beach, the condos or offices is kinda romantic, or playful and quirky at least. i think in ten years the waterfront will be sufficiently developed and beautified and pressure for the factory to leave will be minimum.
 
It would be awesome to preserve the building, the cranes and all that. Turn the building into a museum or an entertainment complex, but don't tear it down! It could make a wonderful juxtaposition with all the modern glass buildings around it.

Surely the best thing about Redpath is that it provides real jobs for real people - many of whom live in the neighbourhood and walk to work. Personally I think it's an ugly building but I love seeing it there to remind local residents (and those who drive past) of the real world.
 
I also love the suprise that I get when I come down Lower Jarvis to Queen's Quay only to see a massive freighter looming over me. The party boats tied up around Queen's Quay Terminal just don't cut it.

For what it is worth, when Tate & Lyle acquired the
Redpath plant in 2007, I think there was an article in the Globe speculating that the only reason the plant was so important to Redpath / Tate & Lyle was that it allowed them to process Cuban sugar cane in North America, for export to the U.S. (I think much of the raw sugar comes from Cuba). Speculation at the time was that if/when Fidel and Raul's regime comes to an end the Redpath factory might move to a lower-cost location (i.e., a cheaper plant in the U.S. that isn't in the middle of a major city centre).

I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing. I agree with the post above that it's good to have jobs on the waterfornt, and once the plant is bounded by Pier 27 on the west and Sugar Beach / Corus / Esat Bayside on the east, it will become far less of a hinderance to enjoying the waterfront.
 
Shot from Scotia Plaza is attached. One King West is in the right foreground.

I can't paste full size pictures in here - do I have to upload from the web instead of directly from my camera?
 

Attachments

  • P1300054.jpg
    P1300054.jpg
    107.5 KB · Views: 344

Back
Top