News   Aug 27, 2024
Another Crane Completes Work at Menkes' Festival Condominiums
 414     0 
News   Aug 27, 2024
News Roundup for August 27, 2024
 407     0 
News   Aug 27, 2024
Evolving Cityscape
 792     0 

Hume shoots down Port Royal Place

G

ganjavih

Guest
Dreary complex is a `wasted opportunity'

Structures lack coherence


CHRISTOPHER HUME

Etobicoke isn't so much a place as a condition. It is a community built by people who appear to despise the city in which they live and who enjoy inflicting pain upon it.

The results can be seen in everything from the clutter of high-rises that clog the skyline to the anonymous strip malls that suffocate the streets.

The municipality had politicians and planners before it was amalgamated, but it doesn't show. From the bottom end of Etobicoke by Lake Ontario to the slabs that line Bloor and Dundas Sts., there's no sign of respect for anything but the automobile and developers' wishes.

The latest example is Port Royal Place, a dreary condo complex now going up on Michael Power Place.

So far, there are three towers, but more are planned. Ranging between eight and 16 storeys, these slabs are clumsy masonry-clad structures that exist in not-so-splendid isolation from their neighbours. Beyond this, the architectural component is minimal.

But the bigger problem is the lack of coherence. The issue isn't height, or even design mediocrity; it's the failure to integrate the complex into the larger whole.

The old village of Islington, along Dundas to the east of the site, had the makings of a genuine neighbourhood, but the main street with its stores seems to be fading into irrelevance.

More than anything, Port Royal Place is a wasted opportunity.

Rather than taking advantage of the occasion to enhance, reinforce and strengthen the existing civic infrastructure, the new complex turns its back on its context.

It's not hard to understand. If the decision-makers in Etobicoke have no respect for the place, why should anyone else?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GRADE: C-

040108_condo_royal_250.jpg

TONY BOCK/TORONTO STAR
Christopher Hume calls Port Royal Place, on Michael Power Place in Etobicoke, a `dreary condo complex' that fails to integrate into the larger neighbourhood and the nearby old village of Islington.
 
I don't know why people pick on Scarborough so much: Etobicoke is much more dismal, in many ways.
 
I have got to agree on this assessment. Being situated in an intensification area next to the subway line this property had serious potential. Unfortunately the potential of the site was wasted on both stubby and ugly buildings.
 
Sadly, after reading Hume's assessment I have come to the conclusion that it is time for him to be retired. There are many beautiful areas in Etobicoke, as well as Scarborough etc. I don't believe the guy ever leaves the safety of his downtown condo (Mozo, one would presume). The picture was taken by a staff photographer.....I doubt Hume ever crossed over the Humber. His critique of Port Royal sounded bitchy with no substance. If he continues to write the drivel he passes off as architectural critque, then at the very least he should back it up with something. I live near PRP and I find the buildings to be very nice. Perhaps, not an A, but certainly not offensive to the eye and constructed of brick with setbacks. I haven't agreed with any of his assessments in years and, just to be fair, I travelled to view Mozo (A plus???) and my assessment is one of a cold, aloof building that is anything but forgettable.
 
It sounds like Hume's major beef is the lack of interaction with the neighbourhood - not so much the design (which he isn't crazy about either). Mozo is not stunning by itself but it's a stunning example of how to build in long established neighbourhoods.

Over time I've come to appreciate that a large part of Toronto's problem with its built form is the lack of harmony amongst neighbouring buildings.
 
I live nearby and so I can give you some insight and context which is missing from Hume's column. Hume is mostly correct in his assessment of Port Royal. This was a failed oportunity to integrate the site into the Islington Village strip. The reason that the buildings (which themselves are not bad) are set back from Dundas is that the secondary plan required a park for the area. Unfortunately, the home owners demanded that the park front Dundas so that it was clear that it was for their use, not a private park for the condo residents. As a result, the condo buildings had to be placed behind the park. I told Coun. Milczyn that this was misguided.

The other problem with Port Royal is that its internal streets do not connect with the neighbouring high rise complex nor will they connect with the Food Basics development, next door (more on this below).

The problem with Hume's judgment is that it is premature. The park has not been built. Nor has the Bloorwood Condo which will have retail at grade and front on Dundas. Furthermore, the development of the Food Basics property (which will begin very soon - the store is closing Jan 19) will also have retail at grade. 2 Dunbloor will also complete the Isligton Village streetscape. So, the prognosis is not as bleak as Hume would have you think but I agree that Port Royal was a lost opportunity.
 
Thanks for that, Borgos, but I still think Hume's got some sort of chip on his shoulder.

I find that when you've been a critic for too long you start to look for things to criticize. Hume sounded downright bitter about Etobicoke in general on this one; he paints the entire former city with the same brush which is ridiculous.

While I can't comment on the condo in question, I can tell you that there are gorgeous neighbourhoods, both commercial and residential, in Etobicoke.

Hume's just out of ideas, I guess, and has resorted to cheap gimmicks in his writing. Too bad...I used to be a big fan of his.
 
In defense of Hume, I think he is writing not so much about the totality of Etobicoke's built form, but specifically the most recently constructed buildings - which are the only projects he would be comenting on in these articles anyway. While Etobicoke does indeed have some very handsome areas, the most recent projects fully support Hume's contention that overall planning is sorely deficient. Both this development and the new towers at the Humber river are indicative of serious problems with this process - the buildings themselves aren't all that bad, but their relationships both to each other and their surroundings are absolutely attrocious. How else to justify toweres looming over crampled townhomes, or parks fronting a supposed "avenue"?

I don't blame the developers for these projects at all - they have designed fairly nice looking (or not bad looking) buildings on their land - they just haven't been made to look beyond their property lines by Etobicoke planners and councillors, who should be primarily concerned with just that issue.
 
"Really? You should re-read the first two paragraphs then."

The first two paragraphs say that recent developments in Etobicoke blow. He talks about highrises and strip malls - these are recent developments. I've seen nice areas in Etobicoke - but they're usually about 100 years old - that's why they're nice. I don't think Hume is saying all of Etobicoke sucks because we all know that's not true.
 
If the case can be made about "towers looming over cramped townhouses", why would he have given an A- to Domus. If you want to speak about a project taking its cue from its context.....that pseudo-gothic montrosity is not only bulky but it hangs over the townhomes built sandwiched alongside it. Not only that.....but what cue is taken from the heritage properties that frequently dot Belmont Street? Hume also frequently mentions "masonry clad" as something horrific....yet he gave Domus an A- and the whole damn lump is covered in it.....and it is already looking stained and brutal from the car exhaust and acid rain falling on it. The point I'm trying to make about his junk journalistic ability is that he is nothing more than a toilet seat when it comes to what makes a building work and what doesn't. One project gets high marks because it might be a loft style he likes and another gets flunked for it. I feel he denigrates buildings which use modern materials in an attempt to remain affordable for the citizenry that need to be able to afford them without any consideration of the cost of higher end materials. Say what he wants, but if every builder built projects that suited his specifications, they might be beautiful (though I question his taste in single-minded modern design) but there would be no one able to afford them and thus the city (all areas) would lose their sense of community by being ghost towns of empty buildings.
 
I respectfully disagree that Domus looms over its neighboring townhomes. Domus is not all that high to begin with, and the townhomes have sufficient access to light, a neighborhood, and all the rest. In addition, the townhomes seem to fit quite nicely with the style of Domus, although there's no accounting for aesthetics if you've got issues with pseudo-Gothic. On the other hand, the towers down by the Humber river completely surround the cramped neighborhood - the desire to maximize waterfront views for residents in the towers has led to their being incredibly close together (albeit staggered in a kind of zig-zag pattern), whcih has the effect of sequestering all the townhouses in tiny little overshadowed enclaves. The whole area honestly reminds me of Jamestown transplanted to the waters edge, with all the parks filled in.

edit:
just for the record, here's some renderings of the Domus development:
domus_towers.jpg

domus_townHomes.jpg
 
I take your point ganjavih, I guess when I read "stripmalls" I assume he's talking about 30 - 50 year old stuff. I forget that developers are still building stripmalls today.

But I do think that Hume tends to be an over-generalizer at times...
 
"On the other hand, the towers down by the Humber river completely surround the cramped neighborhood - the desire to maximize waterfront views for residents in the towers has led to their being incredibly close together (albeit staggered in a kind of zig-zag pattern), whcih has the effect of sequestering all the townhouses in tiny little overshadowed enclaves."

Isn't it all about the density

BTW, one block of townhomes (8) is overshadowed by mid-rises - the rest aren't

Staggered zig-zag pattern? Have you actually being there or just making assumptions such as it being a future St Jamestown with out (LOL) the park?

BTW, The buildings are built in blocks two rows deep from perhaps the city's nicest lakeside park.
 
I've seen Port Royal place, and frankly I like it. I wish the city built more and more buildings like these.

Etobicoke also has some interesting neighbourhoods: the Kingsway and my fave: New Toronto, the original streetcar suburb which has that great grit feel in places, kind of like a mini-Junction.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top