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

In fact, Phase 2 has been left out of the left side of the rendering as well.

This rendering is not meant to show the complete development of the site. It is only meant to showcase phase 1 of Pier 27 to potential purchasers.

42
 
It's obviously not showing the whole final site or it'd show Queen's Quay, too. Will Phase II go on the grass between the towers or around their bases?
 
I'm not saying there will be no grass when this site is completely developed. I just want to be sure that people here know what looks like 2 towers surrounded by huge lawns is not going to come to pass. Phase 2 (renders somewhere else on this forum?) will rise on the left side of that render, and a following phase (no description of it exists yet) will rise in the foreground of this render, and most likely obliterate 90% of the lawn on the right side fo the render.

42
 
digitalcabana said:
From Building magazine:

56871-46701.jpg
Click to expand...

...a nice building for MCC. Frankly, I'd rather have a Rabbas here, it would at least inject a little more life into the nabe, and besides where will all those privileged enough to afford an exclusive piece of Toronto's waterfront procure their Pringles and scratch tickets? I guess Chicago's Navy Pier gets it all wrong. They only need to look at this to see what goes into creating an enjoyable public waterfront.
 
It's too bad the two tower portions are so standard issue boring (and if there's as much clear glass as rendered, all you'll see during the day are curtains) because the tabletop is actually quite nice. Pier 27 should be shifted over eastward where the tabletop can float over the Parliament slip.
 
For everyone worrying about retail, etc; if there is to be any in the second phase it will probably face Queen's Quay. It's pretty pointless to have a convenience store or a dry cleaner fronting onto a boardwalk.
 
Nobody is worrying about convenience stores or dry cleaners. Those are words put into opponents' mouths by the Clewes Brigade, who believe that the only conceivable alternatives are a condo with a dry cleaner at the base, or a condo with more townhouses at the base.
 
So put some words into your own mouth then. We're all waiting to hear what a condo building that's not allowed to be a condo building must have on its ground floor, and you still haven't enlightened us ...
 
Okay, I guess it can't really be helped if you don't read what I write, but here's me a few posts back:

I believe that this massive site should be carved up into dozens of lots and several blocks and developed using a variety of designs and styles. It should have a mixture of many different kinds of uses, including residential, retail, entertainment, restaurant, and any other use that develops organically.

There is no reason why the city couldn't zone the parcel to require that kind of development. Moreover, the federal government was going to buy the site so that the city could do whatever it wanted with it, until Harper was elected and the plan was cancelled.

Why do we have to be so unimaginative that the only alternatives are a superblock condo, a superblock condo with a Rabba at the base, or an empty lot?
Click to expand...
 
A better alternative would have been any type of institutional building...the Clewes Brigade will claim that there's no demand for more institutional properties and no money available to pay for them but the dizzying - almost reckless - expansion of educational, health, cultural, etc. facilities in this city in recent years will disagree. Pier 27's site would be perfect for anything tourist-oriented (maybe or maybe not including retail); the ferry terminal is right next door and an insular residential complex is precisely not what is needed to resuscitate the waterfront east of the terminal.
 
Obviously an institutional use is the most appropriate for this prominent site, though I'd be happiest if it were blended with a few more 24 hour uses. Perhaps a major institution on one part of the lot, and a neighbourhood like I mentioned above on the other part.
 
What would be the point of carving the lot into dozens of lots and several blocks and developed using a variety of designs and styles? Why should it have a mixture of many different kinds of uses, including residential, retail, entertainment, restaurant and any other use that develops "organically" whatever that means? What is so "imaginative" about that? Why is an institutional use "obviously" the "most" appropriate for this site? Why is the site "perfect" for "anything" tourist-oriented?
 
scarberiankhatru said:
A better alternative would have been any type of institutional building...the Clewes Brigade will claim that there's no demand for more institutional properties and no money available to pay for them but the dizzying - almost reckless - expansion of educational, health, cultural, etc. facilities in this city in recent years will disagree. Pier 27's site would be perfect for anything tourist-oriented (maybe or maybe not including retail); the ferry terminal is right next door and an insular residential complex is precisely not what is needed to resuscitate the waterfront east of the terminal.
Click to expand...

...but a residential developer owns this site. Are you advocating that a major institution try to seize the land through expropriation?

42

PS - The 'Clewes Brigrade'? So the way to win your argument here is to lump all those of opposing views into one neatly summed up package of rabid fan boys? Your demeaning manner and dismissive attitude is unbecoming.
 
unimaginative2 said:
Obviously an institutional use is the most appropriate for this prominent site, though I'd be happiest if it were blended with a few more 24 hour uses. Perhaps a major institution on one part of the lot, and a neighbourhood like I mentioned above on the other part.
Click to expand...

Ok, so a 24 hour institution - I guess, a hospital - I can't think of any other institutions open 24 hours - other than Tim Hortons. And then add more streets, because we need more places to drive. And then some incredibly expensive detached homes, the owners of which will certainly not want hoi polloi wandering through their back gardens. This is a better idea for the waterfront? How?
 
The city could have zoned it for something other than residential land...the site could have been used for any purpose.

I'm at least the fourth person in recent pages to mention the Clewes fan club.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top