Toronto Bathurst Quay Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | Kearns Mancini

Here's the schematic to go with the description:

a19maltingsilosmuseumof.jpg


It seems they even found a way to pay for it: a club at the top. If Waterfront Toronto put in the upfront investment, the club would swiftly pay for it many times over -- I work in the nightlife industry and trust me, a popular club essentially has a license to print money.

West8 is quickly becoming my favourite idea factory.
 
junctionist said:
That would be quite an investment for what would only be useful for a small part of the year. And it would still be sketchy swimming in the harbour given the random stuff people throw in there unfortunately.
Click to expand...

People throw stuff in the lake because it's already dirty. It's akin to how one bit of graffiti attracts more, or how postering on a pole invites more posters and soon the area is a mess.

If the Lake were something beautiful, something Torontonians were proud of, we'd respect it so much more.

It's difficult to comprehend that Toronto is located along the shore of one of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world, yet we can't enjoy it. We're a city with a skyline with a lake in front, but not a lakefront city.
 
MetroMan said:
Here's the schematic to go with the description:

It seems they even found a way to pay for it: a club at the top. If Waterfront Toronto put in the upfront investment, the club would swiftly pay for it many times over -- I work in the nightlife industry and trust me, a popular club essentially has a license to print money.

West8 is quickly becoming my favourite idea factory.
Click to expand...


as much as i love this proposal, hell would freeze over before adam vaughan would approve a nightclub at the silos.
 
^^ Haha! Good point! I hadn't thought of that.

Although that's a perfect place for a club. The only other buildings in the immediate area are a school (closed at night), the airport and a large body of water. The nearest homes are further down the street.
 
It's difficult to comprehend that Toronto is located along the shore of one of the largest bodies of fresh water in the world, yet we can't enjoy it.
Click to expand...

It's difficult to comprehend how one can't see past that stretch of Queens Quay east of Yonge. And, I've yet to see a harbour area anywhere that I'd consider clean. (well, not entirely however, Toronto's harbour rates above average for cleanliness probably because of less activity and not because of any initiative)
 
maestro said:
It's difficult to comprehend how one can't see past that stretch of Queens Quay east of Yonge. And, I've yet to see a harbour area anywhere that I'd consider clean. (well, not entirely however, Toronto's harbour rates above average for cleanliness probably because of less activity and not because of any initiative)
Click to expand...

Hey... Lake Ontario's water temp is 21C with all Toronto beaches open, i guess its time for a dip.:D:)
 
A bit of deju vu:

in the early 1970's the City was one of the largest landowners in the St. Lawrence neighbourhood. After demolishing most of the area berween Yonge and Jarvis (see both the "Lost Toronto" and "O'Keefe Centre" photo threads), a flashpoint was reached when the City decided to demolish the architecturally significant Darrigo Bros. building on the SE corner of King and Church, rather than spend about $75,000 in repairs to maintain it.

The battle over this building was one of the key events in the formation of the "Reform" movement (Crombie, Sewell, Jaffary, et al) as to what kind of City we wanted, leading to the empowerment of the Toronto Historical Board and the listing and designation of significant buildings. Alas, it didn't help the Darrigo Building, it was demolished and the site is still vacant today, 35 years later.

If the City is planning on demolishing the Canada Malting Complex, then nothing has truly changed, in spite of all the pieties from the Mayor, Council, and the bureaucrats about "beauty", "design", "creativity" and "preserving the past". Not only are these structures significant historically, as a link to our industrial past, they are significant architecturally, being a form admired by the early Modernists like Le Corbusier. They are also significant urbanistically as a view down Portland Street will attest.

The discussion is so dispiriting, particularly as we all thought that the bad old days of the 1970's were long gone.

kingchurch2.jpg
 
I also like to think that those days are behind us, yet here we are today with the prospect of demolishing a historical landmark. It's disillusioning. The City has to lead if it wants people to follow its laws and guidelines.
 
Excellent post Charioteer, I agree completely. Until we actually move to save some of these buildings, it's all just wind and empty promises.
 
thecharioteer said:
The battle over this building was one of the key events in the formation of the "Reform" movement (Crombie, Sewell, Jaffary, et al) as to what kind of City we wanted, leading to the empowerment of the Toronto Historical Board and the listing and designation of significant buildings. Alas, it didn't help the Darrigo Building, it was demolished and the site is still vacant today, 35 years later.
Click to expand...

Shame,:mad: Fcuk.. The Toronto Historical Board
 
Actually, not only have things not changed, but I think they may have gotten worse. The new 'grassroots' city movements of today seem more concerned about bike lanes and the ability to put adverts on hydro polls, than the saving of Toronto's history (not that those are not worthwhile causes in some respect). Its probably because there is not much left to save. The Bata building's destruction, the condos in the Distillery District...heck even the loss of the old Union Carbide building on Eglinton for a condo, do not paint a pretty picture of our respect for the old.

Like I said, I will be the last one surprised to see a condo go up on this site. And the architect will speak of what a great 'beacon' and 'lighthouse' this new condo will be. And many of us will throw up in our mouths, just one more time.
 
thecharioteer said:
The discussion is so dispiriting, particularly as we all thought that the bad old days of the 1970's were long gone.
Click to expand...

The '60's weren't a good decade for Toronto in terms of what we lost either.

alklay said:
Actually, not only have things not changed, but I think they may have gotten worse. The new 'grassroots' city movements of today seem more concerned about bike lanes and the ability to put adverts on hydro polls, than the saving of Toronto's history (not that those are not worthwhile causes in some respect).
Click to expand...

How did poor bike lanes get drawn into this discussion!?
 
Actually, not only have things not changed, but I think they may have gotten worse. The new 'grassroots' city movements of today seem more concerned about bike lanes and the ability to put adverts on hydro polls, than the saving of Toronto's history (not that those are not worthwhile causes in some respect).
Click to expand...

Maybe we're not so concerned about heritage preservation these days because we in North America tend to think that the battle over preservation has been won. Today we expect our city government to do heritage preservation because it seems like every other city in Canada and the US is doing it, and with events like Doors Open and other initiatives, Toronto at least presents a facade that it is into heritage preservation. Heritage preservation is so ingrained in the North American mind that we criticize other countries for not doing it (take the number of North American newspaper articles that condemn Chinese cities for demolishing their old neighbourhoods).

Bike lanes, on the other hand, is a battle that is not won yet. I think we can see why given recent events.
 
I think you have a good point and I by no means think that the fight for proper and more bike lanes is not a worthy cause.
 
I wonder what the Port Authority`s thoughts on this parcel and any future development are?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top