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

[ProjectEnd]

And to use hawc's DD example, isn't that just a collection of slightly older boxes with a smokestack? The idea that 'historical beauty' is something immediately apparent to everyone is absurd and ignores many of the reasons why heritage preservation is an important, if sometimes trod on, part of how this city sees itself.

 

[Bruvyman]

... And to say we should save the Hern generating plant is akin to future generations saying we should preserve the sewage treatment plant by Ashbridges Bay. The criteria for preservation has to be more than age.

I believe the criteria is about more than age, and the assignment of "heritage" classifications will always be argued and contested since it is such a subjective subject. I think one of the key considerations should be present and future usefulness and ability to repurpose or otherwise make that building a functioning, worthwile addition to the fabric of the city.

On one hand, the Hearn has had some great ideas put forward as to its potential future role, while buildins such as the Malting silos are really just a signpost and marker of the past. Now this is not to say I am in favour of saving the hearn and tearing down the silos, but at least we can make use of the Hearn while preserving a massive structure that to me also has aesthetic and historic qualities worth preserving.
As far as the Maliting silos go, I guess I just simply like them as an industrial aesthetic and as a reminder of what this city was born of. They aren't hurting anyone, and its quite a serene experience to sit in its shadow amongst those statues of gaunt, zombie-like famine survivors while watching planes take off in front of you with the city sprawled out and up to your left.

And back to Redpath... I don't see any real redeemable aesthetic value in this place, but I really am in love with the idea that we can still have a functioning raw material processing operation in the heart of the city existing peacefully and harmoniously with its neighbours. This is a living relic of Toronto's waterfront history, and I think its just so cool that there is still an economic case to be made for its continued operation alongside condo developments, nightclubs, and steps from our country's financial hub. There's a juxtaposition there that is really intriguing and appealing to me.

 

[Miscreant]

Well, from a more practical standpoint - Redpath is providing jobs in the area, and it does need a harbour site. Given that it's no longer using the rail spur, working with WT on the QQ redo, with a relatively small impact on area residents (than say, the hundreds of vehicles they drive?), I don't see why it is any less legit on the waterfront than say those living by the waterfront condos, who did their darnest to keep WT from building the pedestrian bridges along the boardwalk. If there is something one should bitch about it is the latter.

AoD

Right, yeah, this is a more reasonable and cogent argument, by my lights. My problem with the heritage-site arguments is that, as has just been remarked above, it seems to be mainly an argument from age and historical significance, as, barring reasonable differences in taste, I just don't think the factory beautifies the area (unless, yes, you think that historical significance is a function of beautification, to which I respond: then let's keep the Greyhound depot at Front and Sherbourne, and so on [and also: how historical is historical? 20 years? 30?]).

At the same time, I understand that heritage preservation isn't just for the 'nice' buildings. Some can be historically significant while being quite ugly, and that sometimes is enough to preserve it. But then I think: well, historical significance is generally something that tells a unique story about this area, something that sticks out in Toronto, that no other city has, and that is recognizable by others as a historical site precisely because it's unique to the area. I personally don't think the RedPath factory passes muster here; sure, it's unique in that it's the RedPath factory, but it's not unique in the sense that Fort York is unique, or even the CN tower is. So in this sense, the RedPath factory is historical but not significant.

To respond directly to AoD's economic argument, I think focusing on the economics invites simpler analysis about mixed-use development. And for the same reason that I don't think any of us would want the RedPath move into the lot on Wellesley b/t Yonge and Church--shipping logistics put aside for a moment--maybe many of 'us' (present company obviously excluded) wouldn't want it down on the Quay. In other words, economic analysis allows more easily for thinking about the operation in terms of zoning, and we typically leave primary industry like this to zones in which other primary industries operate. So, basically, if we analyze it economically, I think the conclusion follows that either it should be moved to a zone where similar operations exist, or we should rethink developing the Quay into a residential/commercial zone.

 

[interchange42]

Who would pay to move Redpath?

42

 

[Miscreant]

Point well taken, but it's a practical question, one that I don't think has direct bearing on whether the factory belongs in the area.

Consider: crime is bad--who's going to pay to incarcerate?

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

In other words, economic analysis allows more easily for thinking about the operation in terms of zoning, and we typically leave primary industry like this to zones in which other primary industries operate. So, basically, if we analyze it economically, I think the conclusion follows that either it should be moved to a zone where similar operations exist, or we should rethink developing the Quay into a residential/commercial zone.

You are making assumptions and masquerading them as actual analysis here - clearly, the fact that Redpath is still around meant that it is economically advantageous for them to continue to be located in the area. In addition, its' presence clearly hasn't deterred the development of proximate residential, commercial or public uses either. The case for government mandated relocation requires overriding public interests - and it doesn't seem to have been demonstrated in this case.

It would however be prudent to consider the "what ifs" of Redpath relocating. But that should be considered as an effect, not a cause.

AoD

 

[Miscreant]

You are making assumptions without doing the actual work here - clearly, the fact that Redpath is still around meant that it is economically advantageous for them to continue to be located in the area. In addition, its' presence clearly hasn't deterred proximate residential uses either. The case for government mandated relocation requires overriding public interests - and it doesn't seem to have been demonstrated in this case.

AoD

I didn't say anything about it not being economically advantageous. It clearly is, as it's there. I said something about it not being (any longer, or at least, in the near future) properly zoned. Those are separate issues.

As for its presence deterring proximate residential uses, that's an empirical issue. On one hand, yeah, you're right; people are moving in, things are being built, there's big plans for the area, and so on. On the other hand, I'd be interested to know how many average Torontonians, when asked if they would want to look out their window at the RedPath, would say yes.

That's a dispute that can't be carried further here without polling, taking into consideration that many of us here aren't perhaps your run-of-the-mill urbanites.

 

[interchange42]

Point well taken, but it's a practical question, one that I don't think has direct bearing on whether the factory belongs in the area.

Consider: crime is bad--who's going to pay to incarcerate?

The public pays to incarcerate criminals because we agree it has to happen. I don't think you'd poll the numbers you'd need to move a sugar plant on the public dime. Sugar Beach actually celebrates the fact it's beside Redpath - it revels in it - and the majority of visitors seem fine with that. I like the molasses smell when I'm there, and am disappointed if the wind is blowing the wrong way.

Trying to equate this all to crime? Kinda funny really…

42

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Miscreant

But see, what does "properly zoned" from a land-use perspective means? Just because there is a general dislike of manufacturing and other uses co-locating - planning dogma - doesn't mean it can't or doesn't work well in this instance. Personally, I'd rather go on the criteria of whether it works reasonably well over "it has to be so because..." lines of argument.

I don't think the general public as a whole is engaged enough on this issue to consider it one way or another, and it doesn't really matter whether one is a run-of-the-mill urbanite or not - the conditions for imposing the collective will is lacking based on the tests listed above. Not to mention there is the matter of caveat emptor - one knows that Redpath has always been there - and have a general idea what the impact of the plant is - a change in the land-use should not be contemplated unless there is an overriding public agreement - empowered through our political system - that it is no longer in the public interest to have it there - and even then, the authority must conform with the requirements of the law in contemplating any change in the use of the site.

And in the event Redpath does move, I think the heritage arguments will be one component of the broader discussion on the ultimate plan for said site.

AoD

 

[Miscreant]

The public pays to incarcerate criminals because we agree it has to happen. I don't think you'd poll the numbers you'd need to move a sugar plant on the public dime. Sugar Beach actually celebrates the fact it's beside Redpath - it revels in it - and the majority of visitors seem fine with that. I like the molasses smell when I'm there, and am disappointed if the wind is blowing the wrong way.

Trying to equate this all to crime? Kinda funny really…

42

Yeah, you point out an important disanalogy between the two cases. But I don't think it's the relevant one. The point of my comparison isn't that people would pay for one, so they'll pay for the other. It's that whether people pay for it or not has no bearing on whether the point is valid. People might not want to pay for bike lanes in their neighborhood through property taxes or some levy, but that doesn't mean they're not a good idea. And so on.

So, comparing it to crime is funny only if you miss the real point.

 

[interchange42]

And you are missing my point. I believe most people actually enjoy the setting.

42

 

[Miscreant]

Miscreant

But see, what does "properly zoned" from a land-use perspective means? Just because there is a general dislike of manufacturing and other uses co-locating - planning dogma - doesn't mean it can't or doesn't work well in this instance. Personally, I'd rather go on the criteria of whether it works reasonably well over "it has to be so because..." lines of argument.

I don't think the general public as a whole is engaged enough on this issue to consider it one way or another, and it doesn't really matter whether one is a run-of-the-mill urbanite or not - the conditions for imposing the collective will is lacking based on the tests listed above.

AoD

Yeah, I also think that things should generally be assessed on a case-by-case basis instead of dogmatically imposing rules on situations, as if they're all the same and there's no consideration of context. So we're in agreement there. But I think what's really in dispute here isn't the methodology of urban planning--do we use formulae or do we privilege individual situations? What does it mean to zone?--but whether the factory works in this particular situation. Assuming that it does and building an argument on that basis begs the question. I don't think it does work in this situation, and I've been trying to give arguments why.

I think one of the the best arguments against me is just that others don't care; they'll move there anyways; they'll go to Sugar Beach anyways, and so on. I'm willing to accept I'm in the minority if those are the empirical facts. But I'm still hard-pressed to concede I'm entirely wrong, because if public choice is any measure of good urban development, we're in trouble--the suburbs in the 905 are expanding at an incredible rate, and the planning is, frankly, bordering on irresponsible.

 

[Miscreant]

And you are missing my point. I believe most people actually enjoy the setting.

42

Right, an empirical issue. But even if you're right--most people really do enjoy the setting--refer to my last post in response to AoD.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Miscreant

But I think what's really in dispute here isn't the methodology of urban planning--do we use formulae or do we privilege individual situations? What does it mean to zone?--but whether the factory works in this particular situation. Assuming that it does and building an argument on that basis begs the question. I don't think it does work in this situation, and I've been trying to give arguments why.

I am glad you said privileging individual situations - considering the historical context of the area in question, we privileged the location of residential and other land uses in what was a predominantly industrial area in our planning process. If we are going by strict planning criteria that should never have happened in the first place. I am not disagreeing with that outcome - but if one is going to argue on the matter of privilege, one has to be honest about THAT reality.

I think one of the the best arguments against me is just that others don't care; they'll move there anyways; they'll go to Sugar Beach anyways, and so on. I'm willing to accept I'm in the minority if those are the empirical facts.

Exactly, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and if the public interest - in terms of safety, access, increased density and revitalization of a public asset overall - of the waterfront is achieved, what is there to complain about even if an industrial land use persist on the site?

But I'm still hard-pressed to concede I'm entirely wrong, because if public choice is any measure of good urban development, we're in trouble--the suburbs in the 905 are expanding at an incredible rate, and the planning is, frankly, bordering on irresponsible.

Expansion of the 905 is an entirely different planning issue that a micro-level issue like this one. And if you want to talk about the 905 - there is a huge transition of industrial uses from the core/416 to the peripheral - and retaining a plant like Redpath does carry some significance, wouldn't you agree, particularly as a model of how the predominant dogma of segregated land uses (taken to logical endpoints in the suburbs) need not be the case?

AoD

 

[interchange42]

I hate seeing farms turned into tract housing too, but things have been improving, planning-wise, in the 905 ever since the Greenbelt was established. Not that everything's hunky-dory there yet.

In regard to popular swings, it's true that what the majority will do occasionally makes me scratch my head (elect the Conservatives, elect Rob Ford, etc.). When I'm in agreement with the majority I'm pro-democracy, when I'm ag'in it, I wonder why I'm not in charge. After all, I get it when nobody else does, right?

So we don't all find agreement on all things, lists of criteria meant to bring objectivity to complex decisions included. If we had an engaged enough populace to hold plebiscites on everything, would we have ever built Sugar Beach? I doubt it. It is risky and it's ironic…

but there are many who enjoy it, and who are happy to have recreation and occupation side by side on a living, working, waterfront.

42