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

I would very much agree with Urban Shocker that a certain portion of the waterfront should be about the water and strolling along free of vendors. But the portion of the waterfront in question is just too close to the more active portions already built up. It's the wrong place for an exclusively residential enclave.

And yes, the cul-de-sacs are pretty silly.
 
Actually, quite a lot of people use the green space with lawn, wooden boardwalk, park benches, and mature trees south of Harbour Square during the nice weather. I doubt if many people care if it is public or private space while they're using it, because it is accessible. Good design decisions, such as ease of access, the orientation of the buildings to the water and the Quay etc. will free pedestrians from vexing, hand-wringing doubts about whether or not they're allowed to venture onto the boardwalk of Pier 27 and enjoy themselves.
 
The vendor-free parts of Harbourfront include quiet, hidden places like Ireland Park (perhaps too well hidden as there is no way-finding signage at all yet), engaging, yet quiet oases in plain sight - the Music Garden and the Spadina Quay wetlands, then there's HtO park, vendor free, but engaging and not so quiet.

I see nothing engaging with the Pier 27 proposal, except perhaps the architecture itself, but that won't draw people to the water. The prominade (which dead-ends at Redpath) won't be hidden like behind Harbour Square because of the condo's design, but it won't be inviting, especially as it will be a dead end for quite some time.
 
Exactly, what's so fun about just walking around the exclusively residential promenade and have nothing to do? Wouldn't it be better and enjoyable if you can stop along the way and enjoy a pleasent evening at some waterfront cafes and restaurants?
 
Well, right now, excluding Harbourfront Centre, the percentage of our waterfront given to quiet parkland and residential space is pretty much 100%.

rp07, you're missing the point. Anything Modern=Good. Full stop.
 
Heh. Sometimes UT is great for material. While most threads here are projects-archicture based, the article in Spacing is directly about the public space aspect.

I also put a link in there where Hume's article is posted to this very forum. Perhaps more cross-references are a good idea?
 
Hey, I did not realize that you was Sean. Nice article (although you let the architect off too easily: they are the ones who designed a single use structure).
 
The architect does get off lightly, but he's only commissioned to design what the developer wants, so I really don't blame Clewes. He did the job he was asked to do well up to this point - design something iconic. Site plans and zoning are determined by the developer and city planners.
 
True. They did use the architect to sell this project as 'all things great for the waterfront' and had him speak on such. I realize that I should have taken that for what it was: a sales job to sell the project to both counsel and the public.
 
Given how disconnected this site is from the main body of "Harbourfront" and the big ugly industrial site next door, I doubt restaurants or much other commercial space would work here. They haven't included it because it isn't viable in the near future.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top