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

Hardly. Clewes means that he has designed Pier 27 based on the model of slim pier-like buildings extending towards the water, not running parallel and blocking it. And he talks of public space between the buildings. Read the quotes he gives earlier in this thread.

People go wherever they want to, wherever they're allowed, and in the summer the parkland around the ferry docks and Harbour Square is well used by people who work in the area. They explore. They discover. And with this project they are being encouraged to do so ... by design. Residents, people staying at the hotel, people who work at Redpath and Corus and elsewhere, who knows?
 
Urban Shocker said:
Hardly. Clewes means that he has designed Pier 27 based on the model of slim pier-like buildings extending towards the water, not running parallel and blocking it.
Click to expand...

It's like an old flat screen TV - standing directly in front of Pier 27, there will be a token corridor open to the water, but from any angle, these buildings will be a wall of condos.
 
The reason people from across the city are attracted to the waterfront is the water. People aren't going to go down to stroll Queens Quay, ogle the massing and cladding of its new condos, and browse the spectacular Rabbas and movie stores. There is nothing special about Queens Quay, and this project will ensure that there will never be anything special about it, whether or not pedestrians can catch brief glimpses of the water from the sidewalk. The federal, provincial, and municipal governments are not spending hundreds of millions of dollars from taxpayers across the country on a waterfront project simply for the local condo-dwellers and workers. It's a national project, aiming at the very least to attract people from across the region. Why would people from across the region pour down to the foot of Yonge, what should be the focal point of the waterfront, simply to visit a condo and its nicely-landscaped amenities space?
 
^Exactly. This project, plus the Shitphony represents a slow acquiescence to defeat with regards to this section of waterfront. Also, jumpstarting a revitalization by building crap will only result in an even longer period of dormancy once these projects are finished and everyone realizes how awful they are. This is exactly what happened with Harbourfront in the early 80s when the 5 uglies and some subpar projects south of Queen's Quay were quickly built with no public input. Construction was halted for nearly 10 years while various commitees were drawn to figure out what went wrong. Citybuilding is a marathon, not a sprint, and quick starts rarely result in a winning conclusion.
 
scarberiankhatru: The rendering clearly shows that the lake will be visible between the two condo buildings. The tabletop hovering above them is a clever way of reducing their bulk by housing people above them.

There are many reasons why people will continue to use the waterfront - and some new reasons once this parking lot is converted to housing, and the Corus building is built for office workers nearbye. A 25 metre wide promenade along the water on the west and south sides of the site will give them, and other people, plenty of space to walk and opportunities enjoy the lake. I don't believe the Feds or Province are being asked to pay for Pier 27 are they?
 
They are, actually. They're paying for major transit projects on Queens Quay, refurbishment of the streets, other infrastructure improvements (water, sewer, etc.) decontamination of the surrounding area, etc. The fact is, they're paying for a waterfront revitalization, and we're turning the centre of our waterfront into a private condo complex.
 
Good for them - though a transit line isn't a condo, sidewalks need to be maintained, and the government should pay for infrastructure improvements because the Quay needs them. Bringing more people to live on the waterfront will revitalize it.
 
Urban Shocker said:
scarberiankhatru: The rendering clearly shows that the lake will be visible between the two condo buildings. The tabletop hovering above them is a clever way of reducing their bulk by housing people above them.
Click to expand...

The waterfront will not be visible if you're looking at the area from an angle. As you're approaching from the east or west along Queen's Quay - and you're forced to due to obstacles - you'll still be greeted by a wall of condos, a perfect continuation of Harbour Square's wall effect...and we have yet to learn what exactly will become of all the "green" around the rendered condos. The bulk-reducing tabletop is a red herring: any building, of any height, massing, or alignment, blocks off the waterfront from Queen's Quay. Pier 27 is not a clever solution. It still blocks the waterfront but with a building that is useless to all except the lucky few who get to live there. The building itself is not ugly (this is the project's only redeeming quality), but I agree 1000% with Hume - the location is totally wrong.
 
Maybe what this city needs now is somebody like catalogue shopping magnate A. Montgomery Ward in Chicago at the turn of the century. Montgomery Ward used his own money to get into four court battles to get rid of existing buildings on the Chicago waterfront, and to prevent new ones from getting built there (including his rival Marshall Field's Field Museum... the only exception was the Art Institute of 1892). The efforts of Montgomery Ward are now visible in Chicago's Grant Park.

I vote for unimaginative to be Toronto's new Montgomery Ward!
 
many more units to come

The first two buildings shown in the rendering comprise less than 500 units of more than 1,500 approved. My question is what is this going to look like when the full density is achieved?

While the architect may have admirable intentions, I doubt that the value engineers employed by Cityzen are going to be quite as concerned, At the end of the day, you won't see much lake from the street unless you're 155 feet tall.

Another question is why are Clewes and Diamond on the waterfront design review committees--see Project Symphony's approval--when they are actively engaged in pushing their latest development? This is a clear conflict in my opinion.
 
wyliepoon said:
Maybe what this city needs now is somebody like catalogue shopping magnate A. Montgomery Ward in Chicago at the turn of the century. Montgomery Ward used his own money to get into four court battles to get rid of existing buildings on the Chicago waterfront, and to prevent new ones from getting built there (including his rival Marshall Field's Field Museum... the only exception was the Art Institute of 1892). The efforts of Montgomery Ward are now visible in Chicago's Grant Park.

I vote for unimaginative to be Toronto's new Montgomery Ward!
Click to expand...
Some would argue that the park itself is a barrier. It's quite a long walk from downtown to the lake through that park.
 
the harbour is quite a distance from Queens Quay at this point (over 3X the depth of the music garden) and is not exactly highly visible considering not even trees stand in the way so I don't quite understand those that see QQ as a lakeside promenade onto itself
 
^^ that's a good point. Although I feel that private uses can coexist with public uses for the waterfront, I think the city should absolutely fight tooth and nail for any new building here to have public uses in its base.

The water's edge promenade will be not be Queen Quay, it will be what West8 is building which will in itself adds at least another 5 meters of boardwalk along the water to the 25 that is the legal requirement to build there.

Just as long as this isn't a fenced in property with no public use at its base, then I think this will be a boon for the area and I look forward to seeing it get built.
 
Due to obstacles like the ferry terminal, Redpath - even the various quays themselves - Queen's Quay is part of the waterfront promenade.
 
An uneducated response...

I could care less about the tourist in the city, its sad. My problem is I like the water, much like the rest of us, and I hate one hour plus commutes on the GO train one way to work. I like to believe there are plenty of people who share my woes here.

So, sign me for one of these units.

Now if everybody wants an appealing Toronto harbour, can I throw and hell yah in for better transit in and out of this city. And maybe, just a slight maybe, more people would not need to flood to the downtown condos.

--Signing off with one and only one post here
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top