ganjavih
Senior Member
Seems like people don't quite realize yet that a city of glass towers is extremely uninteresting. Oh well, the same mistakes keep repeating. Toronto... the city that never learns.
Toronto Sun Life Financial Tower & Harbour Plaza Residences | 236.51m | 67s | Menkes | Sweeny &Co
- Thread starter nicetommy
- Start date
CanadianNational
Senior Member
How about something like this? Sorry about the ultra crude mock-up.
A walkway from the ACC through Harbor to Queen's Quay. That's currently a long dead stretch between York and Bay.
New buildings on both sides of York Street - one lightly attached to 90 Harbour, and a new building behind the Harbour commission. This would keep some skyline views intact.
The creation of the park shown would involve the removal of the York Street spiral ramp, as well as pushing back the long Harbour Ramp westward.
(^ Thanks DTowner. Yeah, when I was younger that epidsode had me riveted! Oh gawd, the foam!)
A walkway from the ACC through Harbor to Queen's Quay. That's currently a long dead stretch between York and Bay.
New buildings on both sides of York Street - one lightly attached to 90 Harbour, and a new building behind the Harbour commission. This would keep some skyline views intact.
The creation of the park shown would involve the removal of the York Street spiral ramp, as well as pushing back the long Harbour Ramp westward.
(^ Thanks DTowner. Yeah, when I was younger that epidsode had me riveted! Oh gawd, the foam!)
Last edited:
Tewder
Senior Member
You've been waiting for banal, unfettered development?
I'm in awe of quality design and of informed urban planning/development. Yes, the heritage built form is important to me, so is development that is urban and that is thoughtful, and at the end of the day I'd gladly give up rampant development and twenty mind-numbingly mediocre towers for some vision and some responsible planning...
... and at the end of the day your 'hands-free, all or nothing at all' approach to development does us all a disservice because none of the above need preclude height or discourage development on the large scale that you are so excited about. Developers will only raise the bar if we demand them too... and if the market is so lucrative and so booming in Toronto they will raise the bar.
What are your qualifications to make such a judgement so categorically?
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Qualifications for what...im with Big Daddy and many others on this one...you just got to look at it..its a piece of mediocre 50s junk sitting in the middle of nowhere, im sorry but that thing has no historical and heritage value to be campaigning about.
Tewder
Senior Member
^ Same attitude that many in the 'mediocre' 50s had about Victorian architecture and which resulted in so much destruction.
Automation Gallery
Superstar
Ill admit.. i am pretty sad to know that a lot of that architecture is gone, but the last 50-60 years hasnt seen as much change in small structure architecture from today as the previous 60 years ( Victorian and Eduardian Art Deco etc. era )
Bruvyman
Active Member
i'm with Auto G and Big Dady on this one too. I'm a big proponent of heritage preservation when it is significant. While I am not qualified to give an informed, educated, objective reason why this building is NOT significant, I have still not heard a good reason why it IS. This building does nothing for me aesthetically and takes up a big chunk of valuable property that has potential to add to the density and aesthetic of downtown if redeveloped. Frankly, it reminds me of my high school which was definitely no heritage property.
scarberiankhatru
Senior Member
No. I goofed and got a tattoo of 80 Harbour, the parking lot next door.
A spoiled child would scream, "I want more condos! I don't care what's in the way. Mummy, make Big Daddy give me the condos. Now, now, now!"
There's parking lots on both sides of 90 Harbour that can become condos. 90 Harbour will probably be replaced by a low-rise amenities podium sitting underneath point towers or a circular driveway. More attractive outcomes can be had by incorporating 90 Harbour into a new complex. Let the towers on the parking lots rise 50 or 60 storeys if the loss of density is so abominable.
marcus_a_j
Senior Member
^ + 1
+ 2
Tewder
Senior Member
... well that's it then, if you don't like it bring it down!
Bruvyman
Active Member
Really, that's what you got from my post? My apologies for lack of clarity in my written communication.
What I wanted to say was that I would be all for changing my view if someone with knowledge of the historical and architectural significance of this building could relate that and make a strong case for keeping it. To date, I have not seen this and am therefore of the mind that this site would be better serviced by new development. My previous post was meant merely as a personal opinion to contribute to debate. I apologize if it came off differently.
Yoshimura
Active Member
Living in the Harbourfront, I can say for sure that this area really needs more retail. More outdoor café/restaurent patios would be a nice addition too.
Last edited:
dt_toronto_geek
Superstar
It sure does. Hopefully when the sections on the north side of Queens Quay are developed between Bay & York, and west of Reese St. some smart entrepreneurs will think "cafes"... "restaurants"... "pubs"... instead of "dry cleaner", "printing shop", "dental office"...
Rebecca - HT
New Member
Sure, it's an ugly building! 
The cultural heritage value of the property at 90 Harbour Street is related to its design or physical value as a representative example of a mid-20th century office building that blends features of the three prevalent styles of the period. While the symmetry, cladding and profile reflect Modern Classical styling, the stepped plan and vertical elements recall the Art Deco and the band windows are identified with the Art Moderne. All three styles
were introduced in the 1920s and remained popular until the International Style or Modern Movement gained acceptance in the 1960s.
The cultural heritage value of the Workmen’s Compensation Board Building is also connected to its contextual value as it supports the evolving character of the Central Waterfront as the location of government edifices. The Toronto Harbour Commission Building (1917) at 60 Harbour Street, which adjoins the subject property, and the neighbouring LCBO Headquarters and Warehouse (c. 1947) at 55 Lake Shore Boulevard East are recognized on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.
The heritage attributes of the property at 90 Harbour Street, related to its cultural heritage value as a representative example of a mid-20th century office building blending aspects of the prevalent styles of the period, are found on the exterior walls and the roofs, with particular attention to the principal (south) façade of the main block, and on the interior as described below.
The building is organized in three parts where a five-storey central block is flanked on the east and west by three-storey wings. Above a base clad with polished black granite and ashlar limestone contains window openings, the elevations are faced with buff brick and trimmed with limestone.
On the centre block, the principal (south) façade is organized into three bays by a monumental stone frontispiece that rises five stories. The frontispiece, composed of a stone surround with an outer framework of piers and a cornice, is divided into three sections by two angled piers. The main entrance is placed at the base of the frontispiece where three sets of doors with sidelights and an oversized transom are recessed beneath a
canopy. Within the frontispiece, single flat-headed window openings are placed on either side of the entry and in trios above it. The vertical thrust of the frontispiece is balanced by the horizontal lines of the strip windows in the outer bays of the centre block. The strip windows are set in stone surrounds and contain metal sash windows. The pattern of the fenestration continues on the east and west elevations of the centre block. Its rear (north) wall features similar detailing, apart from the flat piers that divide the frontispiece. The east and west wings repeat the pattern and appearance of the fenestration introduced on the centre block. A cornerstone at the southeast corner of the building reads “The Workmen’s Compensation Board 1951.” Limestone coping trims the flat roofs covering the centre block and wings.
On the interior of the centre block, the first-floor entrance vestibule and elevator lobby with its patterned aluminum elevator doors, terrazzo floor, and marble-faced walls and baseboards is an important feature. The remaining interiors, including the first-floor cafeteria with its Art Moderne elements and the elevator lobbies on the upper floors, have been documented but are not included in the Reasons for Listing
The cultural heritage value of the property at 90 Harbour Street is related to its design or physical value as a representative example of a mid-20th century office building that blends features of the three prevalent styles of the period. While the symmetry, cladding and profile reflect Modern Classical styling, the stepped plan and vertical elements recall the Art Deco and the band windows are identified with the Art Moderne. All three styles
were introduced in the 1920s and remained popular until the International Style or Modern Movement gained acceptance in the 1960s.
The cultural heritage value of the Workmen’s Compensation Board Building is also connected to its contextual value as it supports the evolving character of the Central Waterfront as the location of government edifices. The Toronto Harbour Commission Building (1917) at 60 Harbour Street, which adjoins the subject property, and the neighbouring LCBO Headquarters and Warehouse (c. 1947) at 55 Lake Shore Boulevard East are recognized on the City of Toronto Inventory of Heritage Properties.
The heritage attributes of the property at 90 Harbour Street, related to its cultural heritage value as a representative example of a mid-20th century office building blending aspects of the prevalent styles of the period, are found on the exterior walls and the roofs, with particular attention to the principal (south) façade of the main block, and on the interior as described below.
The building is organized in three parts where a five-storey central block is flanked on the east and west by three-storey wings. Above a base clad with polished black granite and ashlar limestone contains window openings, the elevations are faced with buff brick and trimmed with limestone.
On the centre block, the principal (south) façade is organized into three bays by a monumental stone frontispiece that rises five stories. The frontispiece, composed of a stone surround with an outer framework of piers and a cornice, is divided into three sections by two angled piers. The main entrance is placed at the base of the frontispiece where three sets of doors with sidelights and an oversized transom are recessed beneath a
canopy. Within the frontispiece, single flat-headed window openings are placed on either side of the entry and in trios above it. The vertical thrust of the frontispiece is balanced by the horizontal lines of the strip windows in the outer bays of the centre block. The strip windows are set in stone surrounds and contain metal sash windows. The pattern of the fenestration continues on the east and west elevations of the centre block. Its rear (north) wall features similar detailing, apart from the flat piers that divide the frontispiece. The east and west wings repeat the pattern and appearance of the fenestration introduced on the centre block. A cornerstone at the southeast corner of the building reads “The Workmen’s Compensation Board 1951.” Limestone coping trims the flat roofs covering the centre block and wings.
On the interior of the centre block, the first-floor entrance vestibule and elevator lobby with its patterned aluminum elevator doors, terrazzo floor, and marble-faced walls and baseboards is an important feature. The remaining interiors, including the first-floor cafeteria with its Art Moderne elements and the elevator lobbies on the upper floors, have been documented but are not included in the Reasons for Listing