Tewder
Senior Member
I've seen better city planning in MCC. Take away the cheap-trick bridges this is just another boxy condo blocking off the waterfront from the city. Tsk tsk, another mistake by the lake.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
What should be there?
And isn't the view of the lake already blocked except from Queens Quay?
And isn't the view of the lake already blocked except from Queens Quay?
CanadianNational
Senior Member
A great many things could be there including but not limited to: parkspace, sporting venues, amusement parks, cultural centres, serious shopping, multi-use kiosks, small farms, experimental housing, live/work studios, geared-to-income housing, experimental architecture, scholastic institutions, casinos, aquatic centres, museums, historic monuments, etc. et al.
Often, I think, 'blocked view' is often partially a synonym for 'feels inaccessible', or 'unengaging'.
The lake view is far from blocked along Queen's Quay. It certainly can feel that way at certain areas, though - especially around the Harbour Castle area, where the building are something to be joylessly trod by to get to the Ferry Terminal, and loom unsympathetically over the parks and boardwalk at their base. Places like HtO, the Wetlands and the Music Garden - as well as Harbourfront Centre are probably our best examples of remedying this - where high-density is nearby, but not nearly as grossly imposing or overpowering.
Part of the problem with this building isn't that it's particularly badly handled - I think, generally, its been done well and has plenty of interesting things about it. What bothers me about it are the loads of hype and highfalutin' press that's been making it seem as though it was to be Gawd's Gift To The Waterfront. It's not. It's a somewhat quirky, nicely done bunch of ordinary - an upscale more-of-the-same, with a cherry on top.
Partly due to the print about it, partly due to the people involved, and partly because of it's location at the foot Of Yonge Street, expectations have run high. It is disappointing to see that street (boardwalk?) level aren't all they could be, and all the more disappointing because of the easy possibilities within reach to improve the public realm here. Buildings like OCAD have shown us lately how interesting things can get when dare to dream a little, though nothing that radical would be required to make this notable area more wonderful.
But in the end, we seem to be stuck with a very Toronto situation: Be thankful for what you're getting, because it's better than nothing at all - and who do you think you are for asking for 'More', anyway?
In that regard, this building seems to me to be a sister project to that chaste, respectably tailored monument to TEDCO, the Corus Entertainment facility. It will be interesting to see just how engaging they are when complete.
Often, I think, 'blocked view' is often partially a synonym for 'feels inaccessible', or 'unengaging'.
The lake view is far from blocked along Queen's Quay. It certainly can feel that way at certain areas, though - especially around the Harbour Castle area, where the building are something to be joylessly trod by to get to the Ferry Terminal, and loom unsympathetically over the parks and boardwalk at their base. Places like HtO, the Wetlands and the Music Garden - as well as Harbourfront Centre are probably our best examples of remedying this - where high-density is nearby, but not nearly as grossly imposing or overpowering.
Part of the problem with this building isn't that it's particularly badly handled - I think, generally, its been done well and has plenty of interesting things about it. What bothers me about it are the loads of hype and highfalutin' press that's been making it seem as though it was to be Gawd's Gift To The Waterfront. It's not. It's a somewhat quirky, nicely done bunch of ordinary - an upscale more-of-the-same, with a cherry on top.
Partly due to the print about it, partly due to the people involved, and partly because of it's location at the foot Of Yonge Street, expectations have run high. It is disappointing to see that street (boardwalk?) level aren't all they could be, and all the more disappointing because of the easy possibilities within reach to improve the public realm here. Buildings like OCAD have shown us lately how interesting things can get when dare to dream a little, though nothing that radical would be required to make this notable area more wonderful.
But in the end, we seem to be stuck with a very Toronto situation: Be thankful for what you're getting, because it's better than nothing at all - and who do you think you are for asking for 'More', anyway?
In that regard, this building seems to me to be a sister project to that chaste, respectably tailored monument to TEDCO, the Corus Entertainment facility. It will be interesting to see just how engaging they are when complete.
syn
Senior Member
I thought a designer of your calibre would be able to see that they haven't taken advantage of the possibilities offered by the site.
This is a nice condo, but it had the potential to offer so much more. It's great if you happen to live there...not so great if you don't. Simply offering the public token access to the waterfront doesn't make it a good project.
Tewder
Senior Member
Great post CanadianNational. I agree with your position. There is also something about the large unified scale of Pier 27 that makes it feel unwelcoming, posturing as a private and exclusive enclave (an upmarket housing project, if you will). Pretty, but unwelcoming. This is exactly the wrong response to this location, both politically and strategically for the Waterfront in the long run, and all the more so when accrued with the other mistakes on the lake.
I don't quite understand all of the public realm utopias that are being foisted upon this site: the bulk of it is not publicly owned land. The public get access to a wide, landscaped boardwalk along the water's edge on the west and south, plus will get access through the middle of the site between phases 1 and 2.
The view corridors between the twin buildings of each of the first two phases are there to allow views to the lake for future phases 3 and 4. Here's the site plan again for a reminder of how this will work:
42
The view corridors between the twin buildings of each of the first two phases are there to allow views to the lake for future phases 3 and 4. Here's the site plan again for a reminder of how this will work:
42
unimaginative2
Senior Member
The site would have been publicly owned if the NDP hadn't brought down the Liberal government last time and Harper hadn't been elected. The deal was already signed, but Harper cancelled it as soon as he was elected.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,457
- Reaction score
- 9,232
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
One must remember though that there is little argument amongst us detractors about the fact that this is indeed privately owned land, and as such, a public park for the whole site is not going to be a realistic option.
However, the claims about the public space along the lake being offered are also a bit much, as this is mandated anyway no matter what would be planned for the site. The principal arguments are whether a single-use zoned upscale residental development is approporiate, rather than a privately owned, mixed use development with greater public access. Even a restaurant or cafe or public amenities somewhere, even on the public part of the site, would have done the trick.
The lofty talk by the developer and its architect is just that. It's better than Harbour Square, which also has the little-known and little-used mandated public space behind it (and all but a few here regard that as a mistake not to be repeated), but there's a bit too much common problems here as well. The city dropped the ball twice: once in the 1980s in selling the land, and again now by not properly zoning the site or demanding some non-residental use.
The scale is smaller, the architecture a bit more open, but the same basic mistakes are being made yet again. I bet even Diamond's Corus disaster will be more welcoming than this.
However, the claims about the public space along the lake being offered are also a bit much, as this is mandated anyway no matter what would be planned for the site. The principal arguments are whether a single-use zoned upscale residental development is approporiate, rather than a privately owned, mixed use development with greater public access. Even a restaurant or cafe or public amenities somewhere, even on the public part of the site, would have done the trick.
The lofty talk by the developer and its architect is just that. It's better than Harbour Square, which also has the little-known and little-used mandated public space behind it (and all but a few here regard that as a mistake not to be repeated), but there's a bit too much common problems here as well. The city dropped the ball twice: once in the 1980s in selling the land, and again now by not properly zoning the site or demanding some non-residental use.
The scale is smaller, the architecture a bit more open, but the same basic mistakes are being made yet again. I bet even Diamond's Corus disaster will be more welcoming than this.
Urban Shocker
Doyenne
u2: One of the few worthwhile things he's done. Now ordinary people will be able to live in homes built on the site of this parking lot, starting at a reasonable $350,000 - far less, probably, when the real estate market tanks and bargoons can be snapped up.
...and I'm all in favour of having publicly owned land in that spot, (and the blame is undeniably the Tories' for canceling the purchase,) but now that it is privately owned, I don't blame the developer for doing what they think will best sell their product: that includes a private courtyard between each phase for the use of the residents. If I were buying there I would want a pool and deck and gardens, and so would any purchaser.
42
42
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,457
- Reaction score
- 9,232
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
I see that the common fight against Harper, er, single-use zoning at the foot of Yonge is threatened by Liberal-NDP fighting yet again.
Of course, had the Liberals been willing to work with the NDP a bit more and if Martin was smarter, they would have not lost the vote of confidence. Therefore, I blame the Liberals, as well as TEDCO, the City, and the developer.
H
Hydrogen
Guest
Not all of which would have been fully accessible, either.
Geared to income housing would have meant an apartment building that blocks the view, etc. Shopping would have meant the retention of parking and a large building that would have blocked the lake view. Other such projects would have had a similar result. Maybe it just should have been left as a derelict parking lot.
Sure, anything could have gone up on this location. But not one of these things would have satisfied everyone.
khris
Senior Member
Has this started construction yet?
unimaginative2
Senior Member
How about a public space that at least goes all the way down the Yonge St slip to the lake?
MetroMan
Senior Member
^ What people aren't seeing is that the Pier27 site is not the foot of Yonge St. It's off to the side. The foot of Yonge st is the slip which is planned to become a major public destination with a West8 "wavy deck" like at Spadina but on a larger scale.
The city also owns the land running along the East perimeter wall of the slip. A long pier could be built here, jutting into the lake.
While I applaud the unique architecture of Pier 27, I'm sorry that they couldn't integrate a commercial component into the base of their buildings... but who's to blame them? It's their land, and they're in the business to make money.
The city also owns the land running along the East perimeter wall of the slip. A long pier could be built here, jutting into the lake.
While I applaud the unique architecture of Pier 27, I'm sorry that they couldn't integrate a commercial component into the base of their buildings... but who's to blame them? It's their land, and they're in the business to make money.