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

Pier 27 prices

I went to a "reception" there last night. There were no 1 bedrooms left, and many other units with prime water views had been sold. A 2bdrm with a den was listed at $836,000 for 1132 sq. ft. A parking spot is $35,000. I think that, at this project and the L tower, brokers are buying up multiple units with the plan to flip them in the short and intermediate term prior to closing. I've already seen evidence of this online.
 
rp07 said:
I was walking along the Queens Quay today towards Jarvis from Yonge St. and noticed a real stench very strong and over powering. I realized that it was coming from the sugar plant. This wasn't the only time. Through out the year there's always that stinky sweet sometimes pungent smell especially during the hot summer months. Knowing this, would anyone want to buy a unit at Pier27? I wouldn't.
Click to expand...

You can smell the raw sugar as far north as Queen Street when the wind comes out of the south.
 
This project, plus the Shitphony represents a slow acquiescence to defeat with regards to this section of waterfront
Click to expand...

But isn't part of the aim to build a work/live neighbourhood along the waterfront?

The first two projects come along and the whole thing is deemed a failure by some. That's just a little premature, don't you think?

I'm still amazed that this portion of the waterfront is underway. I thought the Donlands would be developed first.
 
boat slips

luvbrka said:
Rangatang: Were they selling boat slips?
Click to expand...

There was no mention of boat slips. As a sailor, I can tell you that without a breakwater it would be a rough ride for anything tied up in a slip there. I also am wondering about the condition of the sea wall and how foundation construction could affect it, a mere 75 feet away.
 
I think people are just disappointed, having eagerly waited for that set-piece, iconic project on the central waterfront, one that would inspire and kick-start quality development. I don't think people have a problem with condos or office space along the waterfont, but can we blame them if they are little jaded about what starting off with them, at what have been identified as significant sites, might bode for future development, estpecially when you consider the history of development in the area to start with?
 
The wonder is that it has taken so long to bring more residents and office workers to the part of the waterfront that runs east from Yonge - a process that began with the construction of 1 Yonge and Harbour Square some 30 years ago and then stalled for decades.
 
Re: "iconic":

Can we have a moratorium on the use of that word? Everyone and their brother claims that what they're building at their intersection of town will be "iconic", thanks to the allure of - and demand created by - the high-fashion, camera-friendly, sculpturally sensationalist products of a small coterie of jetlagged starchitects and their imitators. The west tower of MaRS is claimed to be "iconic" - when all it is is a gussied-up version of the perfectly fine previous design. Visionary planners wave their magic wands and direct that an "iconic" structure must be built at the foot of Jarvis - and indicate it on their renderings with something that looks like huge balls of horse manure. One of the shortlisted firms for Lower Don Lands proposes ( groan ) an "iconic" aquarium to anchor the site. And so on, and so on, and so on ...
 
toronto already has an icon

that big tower.

anyhow, pier27 kinda stuffX100 is 1000X better than 99.9% of the stuff in Canada west of Dufferin St.

Now if pier1 imports was still around, they could move into phase one--

Here's what I hate about Torontonians: they're always complaining about the waterfront when in actual fact, the best part of the waterfront (and arguably the best urban design of any beach in Canada) is already in Toronto! The Beach duh!
 
I should clarify: I didn't mean the actual beach itself but rather the architecture surrounding it. Kits, 2nd beach etc are indeed stunning for setting but ultimately feel "suburban" compared to the old Victorian architecture of Toronto's Beach district. Granted, Kits has an amazing view of downtown Van etc however, in vancouver I prefer the Point Grey area ultimately (more isolated less travelled etc.)

But back to downtown Toronto waterfront: we need at least 10 Clewe's towers on the waterfront to hide the obvious mistakes (those 3 nasty waterclub towers, the trashy Rivera twins, the Harboursquare clunkers) Lined up in a row along Queen's Quay, X, Spire, Casa, Burano, etc would look amazing and I know kind of Chicago-ish, but that's what I believe downtown waterfront should be: stunning towers beautiful details at street level (vancouver is the ideal model) a narrow strip of green/beach/etc and a narrowed Queen's Quay with green streetcar ROW (maybe even closed to traffic) with cafes, shops etc.
 
Urban Shocker said:
Re: "iconic":

Can we have a moratorium on the use of that word? Everyone and their brother claims that what they're building at their intersection of town will be "iconic", thanks to the allure of - and demand created by - the high-fashion, camera-friendly, sculpturally sensationalist products of a small coterie of jetlagged starchitects and their imitators. The west tower of MaRS is claimed to be "iconic" - when all it is is a gussied-up version of the perfectly fine previous design. Visionary planners wave their magic wands and direct that an "iconic" structure must be built at the foot of Jarvis - and indicate it on their renderings with something that looks like huge balls of horse manure. One of the shortlisted firms for Lower Don Lands proposes ( groan ) an "iconic" aquarium to anchor the site. And so on, and so on, and so on ...
Click to expand...

I agree. It is a word that is overused and abused, and I don't really think (most) people are fooled, despite the efforts of the best publicity/marketing people around. When people are expecting an 'icon' for the Waterfront they are definatately not thinking Pier 27 or Corus.
 
Hydrogen said:
But isn't part of the aim to build a work/live neighbourhood along the waterfront?

The first two projects come along and the whole thing is deemed a failure by some. That's just a little premature, don't you think?

I'm still amazed that this portion of the waterfront is underway. I thought the Donlands would be developed first.
Click to expand...

Part of the reason Harbourfront stalled for so many years (decades?) is because the first large projects in the area--Harbour Square, and the 5 uglies--were so wretched that they actually turned public sentiment and real estate interest against the waterfront. Basically, it was perceived as an undesirable place to live. It also didn't help that a moratorium was placed on the area because of public outrage. And lastly, it put the kibosh on anything truly spectacular being built along that stretch.

The same danger exists on the eastern stretch. If we build uninspiring knock-offs in an area that is already, to put it mildly, unsightly the area will remain undesirable, real estate values will stall and development will continue to be cheap, inconsistent and slow. However, if something spectacular were to be built in one of the trophy locations (Yonge, Jarvis slips) it would generate massive interest, real estate values would climb and the entire district would soon be crawling with upscale developers desperate to be part of the action. And design quality would be excellent because the developers could afford the extras. It's like the saying: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
 
True, but Pier 27 isn't exactly vinegar, is it? Sure, it's not a cultural institution or a giant park, but it is dramatic (since I can't use the i word) as far as residential buildings go, and will add the ever-important "eyes on teh street (water?)" that all those JJ fans out there want so badly. Moreover, these eyes will be fairly well to do, and will, no doubt, demand a design-conscious built form for the area. You can take issue with the type of development all you wnat, but Pie 27 and the 5 f*ugly beige towers aren't in the same ballpark, as far as design quality goes.
 
Part of the reason Harbourfront stalled for so many years (decades?) is because the first large projects in the area--Harbour Square, and the 5 uglies--were so wretched that they actually turned public sentiment and real estate interest against the waterfront. Basically, it was perceived as an undesirable place to live. It also didn't help that a moratorium was placed on the area because of public outrage. And lastly, it put the kibosh on anything truly spectacular being built along that stretch.
Click to expand...

You give the public too much credit
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top