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

[Miscreant]

Miscreant



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'm not sure I follow...care to elaborate?

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 - the waterfront is achieved, what is there to complain about even if an industrial land use persist on the site?

Well, yeah, not much to dispute here. Although I do wonder whether public satisfaction should really be our decision-maker. I'm not sure what folks here think about the ROM expansion, but most of the public hates it. I still think that it was a good idea, and I'm glad to have seen it carried through. More generally, I worry that justifying our urban planning decisions primarily on public satisfaction would lead to a populism that generally resists difference and change. Put another way: I think a deep issue here in our dispute is on what primary basis exactly we should evaluate urban development: that of the population using it? Or that of the developer? A bit of both, surely, but it can't always be so perfectly mixed. There's some situations in which the public should be favoured, others in which the public should be seen as too conservative, short-sighted, and provincial to have the final say. At that point, educated, creative planners should have final say, even despite the public. A bit elitist, yeah, but I'm willing to accept that.

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

Interesting point. Yeah, it would carry with it that significance, and I do also think that the cities--as opposed to suburbs--should be a place where these novel, perhaps chancier statements are made. But I don't think the RedPath passes muster here. Or, it should be considerably made over, made to look like less of a dump.

 

[Miscreant]

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&#8230

Yeah, that's an interesting point worth thinking about.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Although I do wonder whether public satisfaction should really be our decision-maker.

If you are going to invoke the powers of eminent domain - you'd better have a case where the public satisfaction is a key rationale.

More generally, I worry that justifying our urban planning decisions primarily on public satisfaction would lead to a populism that generally resists difference and change.

The funny thing is, (re)moving Redpath is exactly this kind of local populism with regards to LULUs even when then there are negligible impact on the public.

At that point, educated, creative planners should have final say, even despite the public. A bit elitist, yeah, but I'm willing to accept that.

"Educated" (that's a cringe worthy word - don't they have to be?), creative planners are probably the ones who are most likely to favour retaining Redpath *in some form* as a post-industrial comment on our waterfront - not to mention argue for its' current use. And I hate to say it, "educated", creative planners (depending on their role - which might not allow them freedom to act on their creativity) are also likely the ones a) understand the importance of having the public as an ally and b) able to work with them (if not for them, as per their role).

Interesting point. Yeah, it would carry with it that significance, and I do also think that the cities--as opposed to suburbs--should be a place where these novel, perhaps chancier statements are made. But I don't think the RedPath passes muster here. Or, it should be considerably made over, made to look like less of a dump.

So now you're arguing on the basis of aesthetics instead of land use like you're earlier. Sorry that's increasingly shaky ground for you - far more so than the heritage argument, which is to some extent enshrined in legislation. There are no legislation for architectural good taste - and even my elitism has to accept that reality.

AoD

 

[Miscreant]

If you are going to invoke the powers of eminent domain - you'd better have a case where the public satisfaction is a key rationale.

Agreed. I'll go out on a limb and say that I think many would be happy if the RedPath was gone. And many others at least wouldn't miss it. For those that would, it should be compared against what takes its place, and then decided whether there's a net gain.

The funny thing is, (re)moving Redpath is exactly this kind of local populism with regards of LULUs even when then there are negligible impact on the public.

Perhaps then this is a case where populism wins out; that's consistent with my overall position here.

Educated, creative planners are probably the ones who are most likely to favour retaining Redpath *in some form* even as a post-industrial comment on our waterfront - not to mention its' current use.

Yeah, that sounds right to me. Maybe this is a place where I'd disagree with them, then.

So now you're arguing on the basis of aesthetics instead of land use like you're earlier. Sorry that's increasingly shaky ground for you - far more so than the heritage argument.

AoD

The two have never been separate; one of the main points I made in the heritage argument was that it's an ugly building. And in response to the point that that doesn't matter, I claimed that it's not significant enough to be a heritage building; or at least, if it is, some other buildings we don't typically designate as heritage buildings should be preserved as well.

I never intended my two arguments to run together; note that I started out on an aesthetic one, and moved over only to the heritage argument because the responses to my aesthetic arguments took this form.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

You know, you could saved yourself this argument just by saying "I disagree" instead of raising points that you think supports your position but can be demonstrably proven otherwise. Makes for a stronger case.

AoD

 

[Miscreant]

You know, you could saved yourself this argument just by saying "I disagree" instead of raising points that you think supports your position but can be demonstrably proven otherwise. Makes for a stronger case.

AoD

'Demonstrably'. I admire your confidence. Regardless, I try to give reasons when I disagree, to keep me from being obtuse and genuinely contributing to the discussion rather than just stomping feet.

Given that this demonstration hasn't yet been given, I still think, for reasons given above, that the factory would be better elsewhere.

 

[dcc008]

Redpath works where it is, plain and simple. If it eventually goes, great, if it doesn't, oh well. Ever wondered why it is called SUGAR beach? Ha!

Anyone who says that it HAS to go does not know the area at all. It's fine, queens quay is developing well and given time will be a great place to come visit the waterfront.

They just need to get rid of that whale mural, funny how they have a mural of humpback whales in front of lake ontario, in that case, they should have a mural of a school of pike.

AND if anything has to go on queens quay immediately, it's guvernment nightclub.

 

[adma]

Agreed. I'll go out on a limb and say that I think many would be happy if the RedPath was gone. And many others at least wouldn't miss it. For those that would, it should be compared against what takes its place, and then decided whether there's a net gain.

Though you do have to be careful with the "many would be happy" logic--after all, here's the same logic applied to public artworks..

 

[Miscreant]

Yeah, it's a fine line between populism and, for lack of a better term, elitism.

I was thinking today, though, that I wonder what the consensus here would be about the Turtle Island 'transfer station' (i.e., temporary dump) down in the port lands when that area is developed: do we keep it as a 'ironic' relic of Toronto's industrialized port lands, or do we ditch it? It seems to me that many of the arguments that say we should keep the RedPath would also apply to Turtle Island: it's mixed-use (no zoning dogmas here); it's a reminder of Toronto's economic and industrial diversity; no one's gonna pay to move it; and so on.

 

[egotrippin]

I'm all for a bit discourse, but this is just ridiculous. Miscreant thinks Redpath has no business being here, many of us like it. Moving on, oh hey, are they building a condo near the foot of Yonge?

 

[Miscreant]

Well, it is a bit ridiculous, insofar as it this debate does really just come down to taste. No argument given for the Redpath seems conclusive (i.e. 'demonstrative') to me, despite the attitudes accompanying these arguments sometimes suggesting otherwise.

But I would still be interested to hear thoughts on Turtle Island after the port lands are developed.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

No it does not come down to taste. You have not demonstrated the presence of Redpath has caused significant material harm to the surrounding non-industrial users (whom came after the plant was established). That is a very basic test for any kind of official action to have the facility vacate the site. I'd welcome you to demonstrate the same with the hypothetical case of the transfer station at another place and time.

Time to move on, this thread is about Pier 27 and I think this tete-a-tete has been entertained long enough.

AoD

 

[adma]

And besides, the Turtle Island argument is exactly the heritage equivalent to paint-roller/chimpanzee/child-of-six Sun Media-type arguments against public art. (Thus my link.)

 

[Bruvyman]

AND if anything has to go on queens quay immediately, it's guvernment nightclub.

I'm curious: What is it about The Guvernment that makes you state that it must go? And Aod, with respect, I don't ask this with the intention of keeping an off-topic debate raging, but rather in the context of discussing the neighbourhood that the Pier27 development will be existing in. It would seem to me that The Guvernment is a very popular business that brings a lot of people down to this area and helps to support the local infrastructure and economy including parking, LCBO, and Loblaws. And besides, it seems that it is a very popular club that hosts a lot of shows and events.

 

[hawc]

If anything has to go on Queens Quay immediately, it's the Guvernment nightclub.

Why?

Is there anywhere in Toronto that we can have nightclubs, or do you just not like them because you don't go to them. The Guvernment is fine down there. And I'm surprised our preservationists aren't rushing to its defence since it's been there forever.

Is this Adam Vaughn posting under a fake name?