Toronto Waterlink at Pier 27 | 43.89m | 14s | Cityzen | a—A

I see things a bit differently. I appreciate that a factory involved in primary industry existing directly beside a high-end condo development is a testament to the strength of our city, when 'strength' is understood in terms of how one geographical area has a high degree of economic diversity. It's clear that Toronto is doing well when enough people want to live downtown despite being beside a dirty, smelly factory.

But the Redpath is just that--dirty and smelly. From a strictly aesthetic perspective, I think it looks more like a blight than a boon, and I hope that this area is eventually re-zoned to eliminate these kinds of industries. Whether that's possible or realistic is an objection I'm happy to consider.
 
Miscreant said:
I see things a bit differently. I appreciate that a factory involved in primary industry existing directly beside a high-end condo development is a testament to the strength of our city, when 'strength' is understood in terms of how one geographical area has a high degree of economic diversity. It's clear that Toronto is doing well when enough people want to live downtown despite being beside a dirty, smelly factory.

But the Redpath is just that--dirty and smelly. From a strictly aesthetic perspective, I think it looks more like a blight than a boon, and I hope that this area is eventually re-zoned to eliminate these kinds of industries. Whether that's possible or realistic is an objection I'm happy to consider.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree that what we have isn't the most aesthetically perfect ensemble with Pier 27 and Redpath. What we have there is juxtaposition of uses that only the most in-demand of cities produces. If there were better places for Pier 27 or Redpath to be, they'd both be elsewhere, but they both are where they are because it makes sense. It's a strange combo, and the mixed uses can be considered a problem, but it's an interesting problem to have. Pier 27 has dealt pretty well with its proximity to pre-existing industrial uses, in a way that should allow both to coexist reasonably harmoniously for the foreseeable future.

42
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
I don't disagree that what we have isn't the most aesthetically perfect ensemble with Pier 27 and Redpath. What we have there is juxtaposition of uses that only the most in-demand of cities produces. If there were better places for Pier 27 or Redpath to be, they'd both be elsewhere, but they both are where they are because it makes sense. It's a strange combo, and the mixed uses can be considered a problem, but it's an interesting problem to have. Pier 27 has dealt pretty well with its proximity to pre-existing industrial uses, in a way that should allow both to coexist reasonably harmoniously for the foreseeable future.

42
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, 'good problem to have' is probably a good way of putting the point. I can't disagree there. Perhaps the juxtaposition of primary industrial zoning with residential and commercial zoning will result in a highly urban experience. That'd be great. But for that to happen what comes in around the Redpath needs to be spectacular to offset how ugly (I believe) the factory actually is. Or the factory needs a good wash. Either way, I take the existence of Redpath to be a qualified positive, if one at all.
 
Qualified positive… in that there are a lot of people employed at Redpath? You wouldn't be questioning Redpath's value in the plus column if you were one of the ones employed there. I'm glad the company is there contributing to Toronto's bottom line too.

Pier 27 is the non-conforming use in this instance, but the architecture of that development allows the two buildings to co-exist, side-by-side. Good for them!

42
 
interchange42 said:
Qualified positive… in that there are a lot of people employed at Redpath? You wouldn't be questioning Redpath's value in the plus column if you were one of the ones employed there. I'm glad the company is there contributing to Toronto's bottom line too.

Pier 27 is the non-conforming use in this instance, but the architecture of that development allows the two buildings to co-exist, side-by-side. Good for them!

42
Click to expand...

Relocation of Redpath doesn't necessarily mean it is out of Toronto and loss of all the jobs. It is not like QQ/Jarvis is the only possible location for Redpath to operate.

Although people may try to sugar coat things (how much they like to see it), the factory IS indeed ugly - more so than Con-Edison you pointed out earlier. I am glad that downtown Toronto is in such high demand that the residents of Pier 27 are willing to live right beside it, but I am sure most do so despite it, and would prefer something less ugly, intrusive and smelling than a giant sugar refinery if the did have a choice. And I am sure Pier 27's promotion ads don't proudly claim "you will be able to live right beside a giant sugar factory, which provides XXX jobs to the City" and put its image on the rendering - at least I don't see it but if it were something nicer, it will be mentioned. RE agent will probably try to convince buyers it will not be a big deal, instead of saying "how cool it will be to live beside it, being able to see and smell it every day!" So let's not pretend it is not a negative factor for anyone residing anywhere close to it.

And for those who strongly like it, it is because they only see it a few summer days, possible from Sugar beach. They don't live beside it, nor do they have to see and smell it every day. Suppose there is a pig piece of land near where they live and there is a development proposal, would they prefer living beside a monstrous factory emanating funny odor every minute, or a clean lined office/commercial/residential building or a public space? To some extend, it is also a NIMBY sort of thing, just a different perspective.
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
Qualified positive… in that there are a lot of people employed at Redpath? You wouldn't be questioning Redpath's value in the plus column if you were one of the ones employed there. I'm glad the company is there contributing to Toronto's bottom line too.

Pier 27 is the non-conforming use in this instance, but the architecture of that development allows the two buildings to co-exist, side-by-side. Good for them!

42
Click to expand...

I think I would still question it, depending on the frame of reference. That was the main point of my reply to your original comment. Depending on the frame of reference for how we analyze the Redpath, it could be a bonus and it could be a bust.

If I were working there I'd like to think that wouldn't prevent me from realizing both that, from the perspective of home economics it's positive because I have a job, and from the perspective of the aesthetics of city-building it's negative because it's ugly.

Hence, it's a qualified positive because the frame of reference qualifies the outcome of the analysis. Whether I worked there is really a red herring when we look at it from the perspective of how it looks. So yeah, I think I'm in line with ksun on that matter.
 
Sorry, but it is obnoxious in the extreme to claim that if there is a problem here, that the problem is with Redpath.

If Pier 27 residents complain, then they are nothing more that short-sighted self-serving fools with entitlement issues who were forewarned that there was a sugar refinery to the east. It's written into their purchase agreements. It's being written into the Daniels Waterfront agreements too, and will be for the LCBO lands as well, maybe 1-7 Yonge too, not so sure about that one. Everyone moving into this area knows that the plant is there. Meanwhile, Redpath are doing their part by making alterations to their process to restrict the odours more.

You can dream up visions of Redpath moving away, but it's not going to happen, and I cannot see why it should.

42
 
interchange42 said:
Sorry, but it is obnoxious in the extreme to claim that if there is a problem here, that the problem is with Redpath.

If Pier 27 residents complain, then they are nothing more that short-sighted self-serving fools with entitlement issues who were forewarned that there was a sugar refinery to the east. It's written into their purchase agreements. It's being written into the Daniels Waterfront agreements too, and will be for the LCBO lands as well, maybe 1-7 Yonge too, not so sure about that one. Everyone moving into this area knows that the plant is there. Meanwhile, Redpath are doing their part by making alterations to their process to restrict the odours more.

You can dream up visions of Redpath moving away, but it's not going to happen, and I cannot see why it should.

42
Click to expand...

To say that RedPath will never move is rather foolish. Anything could happen and unless you have inside info, it may indeed move one day. Might not be in 2 or 5 years but 10 or 15.
 
Last edited:
interchange42 said:
Sorry, but it is obnoxious in the extreme to claim that if there is a problem here, that the problem is with Redpath.

If Pier 27 residents complain, then they are nothing more that short-sighted self-serving fools with entitlement issues who were forewarned that there was a sugar refinery to the east. It's written into their purchase agreements. It's being written into the Daniels Waterfront agreements too, and will be for the LCBO lands as well, maybe 1-7 Yonge too, not so sure about that one. Everyone moving into this area knows that the plant is there. Meanwhile, Redpath are doing their part by making alterations to their process to restrict the odours more.

You can dream up visions of Redpath moving away, but it's not going to happen, and I cannot see why it should.

42
Click to expand...

I want to try to separate out a few different points I understand you to be making here. The first one is that the residents of this area aren't in a position to complain because Redpath has some priority in the matter. Another is that Redpath isn't going to move away. And the third is that it shouldn't.

Those are all separate issues. For example, even if Redpath has some kind of priority in the matter such that residents aren't entitled to complain about it, it doesn't necessarily follow that it shouldn't (eventually) move. That's just because the priority that Redpath enjoys is, as you've outlined it this quoted post, a legal priority conferred through the current and future residents' willful signing of purchase agreements. But this rightful legal status has no necessary and direct bearing on whether Redpath should exist in the present location from an urban development perspective, save where urban development overlaps with legal and property rights conferred through contracts. That's just because considerations of urban development, including the aesthetics of a neighborhood, extend beyond legal considerations.

I think the point I and ksun (as I get him) are trying to make isn't a legal one, but an aesthetic (for lack of a better word) one. So countering with legal considerations is beside the point, I believe.

That all being said, when this aesthetic rather than legal frame of reference is taken into consideration, I think my and ksun's points have more credence than you're granting. In the least, I don't think these points are obnoxious, at least not if the legal and aesthetic considerations are properly separated out. And that's just a longer way of saying that these legal considerations don't really tell us anything about whether the Redpath should or shouldn't move--from a broader urban development perspective. Bringing up legal considerations, in other words, just changes the discussion.

So I'd still like to see it gone and pop up in a more appropriate location, presuming no loss in jobs or productivity (which is another discussion from the one I understand us to be having).
 
I'm trying to say that the aesthetic concerns are piffle compared to the rights of the pre-existing owner on the site.

Sure, some day Redpath may move, but for the moment they are investing money in upgrading the refinery, so hoping that may happen soon is wasted time.

Here's what residents purchasing close to Redpath see (although the bit about the railway may have been modified, as the rail has been modified right on outta there):
"Warning: This site is in proximity to the heavy industrial Redpath Sugar refinery located at 95 Queens Quay Boulevard East (the “Redpath Facility”) which operates 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Various processes, shipping and receiving, and rail operations may either operate continuously or at any time of day or night. Activities may include: loading, unloading and repair of large tractor trailers or bulk bin trucks; loading, unloading and movements of railway cars along Queens Quay Boulevard; docking and unloading of ocean and lake going ships; venting of steam; construction and repair; and operation of various sugar refining processes. In addition, there may be industrial odours and light emanating from the refinery from time to time. Redpath may apply to alter or expand the Redpath Facility in the future. Notwithstanding the inclusion of certain mitigation features within this development to lessen potential noise, air emissions, dust, odour, vibration, and visual impact from the Redpath Facility, from time to time noise from Redpath Facility is likely to be audible, odours may be unpleasant, and dust and light emissions may be bothersome and such potential noise, air emissions, dust, odour, vibration, and visual impact may impact the enjoyment of indoor and outdoor areas of this development. Redpath Sugar advises that it will not be responsible for any complaints or claims arising from any of the activities at or relating to the Redpath Facility property or operations thereon."
Click to expand...
 
interchange42 said:
I'm trying to say that the aesthetic concerns are piffle compared to the rights of the pre-existing owner on the site.
Click to expand...

Yep, I hear ya. Look, I'm not disputing that. We can agree that my aesthetic taste definitely shouldn't trump the force of legal contracts. But it's a false dilemma, as I wasn't saying it should. Ideally, I'd like to see it moved. But not at the price of exacting injustice against Redpath or anyone else.
 
interchange42 said:
I'm trying to say that the aesthetic concerns are piffle compared to the rights of the pre-existing owner on the site.
Click to expand...

You are making a legal argument whereas others are saying that they feel that ideally, the factory would not be located in this area. Nobody is advising for them to be illegally forced off their own land, which is ridiculous. Some forumers have expressed that they don't like this reality and imagine a better harbourfront without Redpath. That's all. Let them believe that or feel that; there's nothing to debate.

While I am of the opinion that the factory makes the area more interesting/diverse and adds an interesting angle to the programming of Sugar Beach (watching the ships load and unload is both fascinating to watch and a great history lesson about Toronto's waterfront for visits to the East Bayfront), I don't think every single opinion someone holds around here needs to debated to death. We are allowed to dream outside the status quo, even if it's not reality, or the same opinion you hold.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top