Toronto 3C Waterfront | ?m | ?s | 3C Lakeshore | Foster + Partners

Does the 3c parcel include the Eastern section of the Keating Channel development? Or is it all west of Cherry Street?

All together, this is a really exciting bit of development.

Not simply because we now know what Bayside is more or less going to look like (not unlike the olympic village in Vancouver) - but because this site is much larger when taken altogether, It's got a really interesting locale on a 'corner', and if the east side is included, and insert back into the city along the channel. All the models and renderings seem to show something a bit different regarding heights, and ongoing tinkering with building envelopes. This looks like signature buildings aren't planned out yet. But the basic streetscape looks agreed on. I also like that it looks a plaza of some kind for under the Gardiner toward the Don is being planned. Another kind of underpass park?

So this could mean some much hoped for buildings with some dazzle, some real difference and excitement in the archtecture, a wide variety of types and uses, and some really engaging park and retail developments. All good, I'd say. I doubt the traffic reconfigurations and the Gardiner zipping by will daunt the technologically-friendly Foster. The new street configurations make sense, and will make this a more easily trafficked, high-volume area. Already located at the intersection of the Gardeiner and the DVP, this bodes well for the creation of impressive gateway buildings, putting a greater density of pedestrians, cars, bikes, and transit etc. together.
I think this locale could suit his work very well.


As it is now:
3c.jpg


Van Valkenburg Plan Model with portlands:
donlandsmodel.jpg



donlandsdetail.jpg



VanValkenburgh website:
http://www.mvvainc.com/project.php?id=75&c=urban_design
 
Last edited:
I think the Home Depot site (429 Lake Shore E) is west of Cherry. The land east of that is held publically. And for completeness's sake, here is a proposal back in what, 2007 for the Victory Soya Mills site right next to the Home Depot one, which I believe are now part of the 3C proposal.

http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2007/te/bgrd/backgroundfile-5998.pdf

It will be interesting to see how Foster's master plan fit in with the scheme by MVVA - don't forget, to add to the interest to this project - Citiyzen et al lost to Hines for EBF Bayside and there might be conflict coming up. Suspect architectural "shock and awe" might be part of that strategy?

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
don't forget, to add to the interest to this project - Citiyzen et al lost to Hines for EBF Bayside and there might be conflict coming up. Suspect architectural "shock and awe" might be part of that strategy?
Click to expand...

Methinks that would be a very canny strategy, especially since they'll need to convince prospective buyers to fork out cash for properties that may not have any higher order transit links for quite some time.

The other outcome from such a strategy is that it'll force Hines to really up their architectural game.
 
Last edited:
NM:

Actually I was referring to potential conflict with WT and less to do with Hines - since the 3C master plan could deviate from what's proposed in MVVA's Lower Don Lands Keating Channel Precinct plan. We'll see.

AoD
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
I think the Home Depot site (429 Lake Shore E) is west of Cherry. The land east of that is held publically. And for completeness's sake, here is a proposal back in what, 2007 for the Victory Soya Mills site right next to the Home Depot one, which I believe are now part of the 3C proposal.
Click to expand...

Yes, and to be clear it is the land west of where Cherry street is today, but would include two developable blocks east of where Cherry will be if Waterfront Toronto manages to hold its ground on the work done to date.

It will be interesting to see how Foster's master plan fit in with the scheme by MVVA - don't forget, to add to the interest to this project - Citiyzen et al lost to Hines for EBF Bayside and there might be conflict coming up. Suspect architectural "shock and awe" might be part of that strategy?
Click to expand...

I don't mind shock and awe and something not completely to spec with the neighbourhood plans, but hopefully they will not try and have the planned future alignment of Cherry Street, Queens Quay, eastern boardwalk and the boardwalk crossing of Keating Channel removed or moved. I would say those elements are the core of the designs have been completed to date.
 
AlvinofDiaspar said:
NM:

Actually I was referring to potential conflict with WT and less to do with Hines - since the 3C master plan could deviate from what's proposed in MVVA's Lower Don Lands Keating Channel Precinct plan. We'll see.

AoD
Click to expand...

Ah, fair enough.

Still, a few rounds of architectural one-upmanship around these parts wouldn't be a bad thing!
 
UT Interview part 2: http://www.urbantoronto.ca/news/2011/10/interview-sam-crignano-cityzen-part-2

I am looking forward to details for the 3C project, even if it is just site planning at this stage. That said, I am a bit perturbed by the discussion about the LRT line and Doug's involvement in it. Granted the interview probably occured prior to the very public Portlands spat. Another ouch - Eric Kuhne's involvement - which is a bit problematic from the standpoint of optics given his role in the forementioned fiasco.

AoD
 
Last edited:
We gave Sam Crignano the chance to amend his answers with regards to transit, in case he felt the City Council Portlands vote might have changed things, but he was happy with what we had.

42
 
i42:

Thanks for the clarification - in any case one wouldn't think the sentiment he expressed re: the Ford's take is any surprise.

AoD
 
The comments regarding streetcars being outdated technology concerns me. Cars were being sold in the late 1800s and the first airplanes in the very early 1900s. Streetcars were first being used in the late 1800s. All three technologies are equally dated. Let's talk about walking on two feet... that is so yesterday. We need to come up with a new fangled transit solution because people feel that something is dated?

LRT equipment built today is not outdated. People who don't get that haven't travelled to Europe and used transit enough or are die hard suburbanites.
 
EnviroTO said:
The comments regarding streetcars being outdated technology concerns me.

LRT equipment built today is not outdated. People who don't get that haven't travelled to Europe and used transit enough or are die hard suburbanites.
Click to expand...

^Monorail! Monorail!... Oh, wait, I guess that joke is a little passe now.... Or is it?
 
EnviroTO said:
The comments regarding streetcars being outdated technology concerns me. Cars were being sold in the late 1800s and the first airplanes in the very early 1900s. Streetcars were first being used in the late 1800s. All three technologies are equally dated. Let's talk about walking on two feet... that is so yesterday. We need to come up with a new fangled transit solution because people feel that something is dated?

LRT equipment built today is not outdated. People who don't get that haven't travelled to Europe and used transit enough or are die hard suburbanites.
Click to expand...

Honestly those comments were the most ridiculousness thing I've ever heard.

Let's put two and two together ... he's an intelligent guy no ? I think it's fairly clear Ford and him have a close relationship (business wise) ... and I'm sure Ford would have found a way for his company to reap benefits from his plan.



I should add, I've heard other interviews with him, he's never really struck me as someone interested in bettering Toronto, though he may try to come off that way. To me his real agenda is the bottom line, clearly to a certain degree it should be, but I'm arguing there's little in the way of anything else that matters to him.
 
Last edited:
Personally I think he is the wrong person to nail with regards to the streetcars comment (which of course he is entitled to, but one can easily challenge the assertion he made). The question is what alternatives are there - subways? Don't think so; elevated rail of any kind? That sounds fancy until you try to include them in your renderings - that's not to mention the added cost AND what it could potentially do to the QQ revitalization project. Some kind of rail-based system on the rail-corridor? Perhaps, but again, cost and system connectivity issues again, not to mention the use of it being an area fraught with jurisdictional messes.

Three cheers to him for a) agreeing to be interviewed; b) be candid with his remarks and c) thinking outside the box though!

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
Personally I think he is the wrong person to nail with regards to the streetcars comment (which of course he is entitled to, but one can easily challenge the assertion he made). The question is what alternatives are there - subways? Don't think so; elevated rail of any kind? That sounds fancy until you try to include them in your renderings - that's not to mention the added cost AND what it could potentially do to the QQ revitalization project. Some kind of rail-based system on the rail-corridor? Perhaps, but again, cost and system connectivity issues again, not to mention the use of it being an area fraught with jurisdictional messes.

Three cheers to him for a) agreeing to be interviewed; b) be candid with his remarks and c) thinking outside the box though!

AoD
Click to expand...


I'll give him that, good point. It would have been much easier for him to simply not do the interview.

Having said that I'll still echo the same sentiment about him as I did in my earlier post.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top