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

There are superblock developments that don't fit this idea of shop-till-we-drop-at-street-level use that work just fine - the TD Centre for instance despite the fact that "towers in the park" is no longer fashionable and doesn't fit the unimaginative ( pardon the pun ) formula.

I don't think you can compare that to Pier 27. We're talking about two completely different sites; one is downtown, in the business district, the other is on the waterfront in the process of renewal.

No one is suggesting a mall, but this would be an excellent location for a waterfront cafe or restaurant. You can make better use of the site instead of making it a piece of private property with a promenade for the public, which may end up going unused since it's otherwise a private space.

I don't know if anyone visits the promenades in front of the other condo buildings in the city, but they often go unused and a lot of people wouldn't even think to bother going.
 
The park south of Harbour Square is actually well used in the summer months, syn. There is at least as much greenery there as in any other part of the nearbye waterfront, including the Music Garden. It is mercifully free of vendors, isn't programmed with events, and many folks enjoy their leisure time all the more as a result.

I live in a single-use neighbourhood - Riverdale. Street after street of residential, without businesses or retail. We get by just fine. We thrive, in fact. And people who don't live in our neighbourhood wander or drive through whenever they like, without going into severe consumerism withdrawal or feeling they must drop off care packages at our doorsteps. And when we all go to work, and the kids are at school - Monday to Friday - the nabe is as dead as a doornail, and I don't hear anyone weeping ( neither those of us who live there, nor people on this forum ) because of it. Why should they? The place works, is connected to the rest of the city, and has a unique character.

Why then the panic over a condominium development - Pier27 - that is attractively designed and adapts the forms of industrial waterfront buildings, continues the revival of the waterfront by bringing people to live there, and is permeable to the city by means of a broad pedestrian promenade that is already characteristic of the harbour? Panic for the sake of what? The imagined right to stop off in a smoke shop and buy a Snickers bar, or wander into the ground floor for a sit-down meal, in any residential condominium building in town because the teachings of Jane Jacobs supposedly paved the way - created the demand maybe - for the right to do so? Ridiculous!

As with the recent discussion of the Distillery District, where attempts were constantly being made to link that development to developments in other parts of the city - and other cities even - where no interchangeability was possible, so we're seeing the same thing happening here with the "superblock" canard that doesn't deal with the actual site and what is being done there.
 
None of the bank complexes take up an entire block. The Eaton Centre is not on Bay. College Park is one corner of a block, and not on Bay. The Manulife is on Bloor, but I'll concede that. New City Hall is the greatest public space in the city, but again, there is only one small restaurant, and no shopping for you.

The Eaton Centre is the poster child for superblocks. At least three blocks were combined for the project and the whole block would have gone had Old City Hall not been saved.
 
They've broken up the super-block feel on Yonge by the renovations done in the 90s that created store facades along Yonge up to the Roots store.
 
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?
 
unimaginative:

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.

The project is "as of right", I believe, dating back to the late 80s/early 90s. The city could of course rezone it all they wanted, but at the end of the day, all it takes is an appeal to the OMB to render it all null and void.

As to the Federal government's intentions - the keyword was "going to", as they always do, isn't it? Thanks for the nice intentions, but at the end of the day, make up your mind and show us the beef.

Criticisms of the what ifs aside, I agree with your assessment that the current proposal, while interesting architecturally (not stunning, just interesting), is wanting in terms of land use and urban design. It's like a more polite version of Harbour Square.

AoD
 
scarberian:

Well, I doubt it'd get that bad - I suspect it will become one of those "interesting...but" condos along Queen's Quay. It all depends on how the ground level is going to look of course - they could really mess up the project by having bad landscaping.

AoD
 
I live in a single-use neighbourhood - Riverdale. Street after street of residential, without businesses or retail. We get by just fine. We thrive, in fact. ... And when we all go to work, and the kids are at school - Monday to Friday - the nabe is as dead as a doornail, and I don't hear anyone weeping ( neither those of us who live there, nor people on this forum ) because of it. Why should they? The place works, is connected to the rest of the city, and has a unique character.

And there you have Urban Shocker's vision for the waterfront. It seems that to him there's no difference between the waterfront and other any plot of land in the city.
 
As to the Federal government's intentions - the keyword was "going to", as they always do, isn't it? Thanks for the nice intentions, but at the end of the day, make up your mind and show us the beef.

AoD, they made the deal. It was done. Layton brought down the government before the government could close, and Harper cancelled it.

You're right, though. If people don't actively despise this project in a few years, it will only be because we've developed the entire waterfront so poorly that nobody realizes that we could do any better.

Riverdale would be a rather less attractive neighbourhood if all the pretty little townhouses and semis were replaced by giant monoliths sitting in grass every three blocks. You know, we've done that before... I would say that Cabbagetown is rather more urbanistically successful than St. Jamestown or Regent Park.
 
I always wondered how the hardcore fans of modernism here on UT reconciled the fact that so many modernist principles are in fact anti-urban. Modernism preaches that every building is individual, the environment and context are not important. Scale is in reference to the car not to people. Superblocks are OK because you're just going to whiz by it in your car anyway. Retail strips with narrow store fronts and people-scaled blocks and streets are obsolete because we'll all drive to the megamall.

But after reading this thread, it all makes sense now. They don't really believe in urban principles. They just seem to believe in this deity known as Clewes who is the giver and taker of all things. They also feel the need to ridicule a wonderful lady who has done so much to preserve the people-oriented nature of neighbourhoods in New York and Toronto... and who taught us so much about the principles of building and preserving successful neighbourhoods.
 
...Modernism preaches that every building is individual, the environment and context are not important. Scale is in reference to the car not to people. Superblocks are OK because you're just going to whiz by it in your car anyway. ... They don't really believe in urban principles. They just seem to believe in this deity known as Clewes who is the giver and taker of all things. ...

Are those that support Modernism a monolith now? I don't worship at the altar of Clewes, and urban planning by Modernists has varied depending on which Modernists you are referring to in this world.

Moreover, one of the participants you are addressing here in this debate as a Modernist, is not a Modernist at all - based on past posts.
 
The park south of Harbour Square is actually well used in the summer months, syn. There is at least as much greenery there as in any other part of the nearbye waterfront, including the Music Garden. It is mercifully free of vendors, isn't programmed with events, and many folks enjoy their leisure time all the more as a result.

I live in a single-use neighbourhood - Riverdale. Street after street of residential, without businesses or retail. We get by just fine. We thrive, in fact. And people who don't live in our neighbourhood wander or drive through whenever they like, without going into severe consumerism withdrawal or feeling they must drop off care packages at our doorsteps. And when we all go to work, and the kids are at school - Monday to Friday - the nabe is as dead as a doornail, and I don't hear anyone weeping ( neither those of us who live there, nor people on this forum ) because of it. Why should they? The place works, is connected to the rest of the city, and has a unique character.

Why then the panic over a condominium development - Pier27 - that is attractively designed and adapts the forms of industrial waterfront buildings, continues the revival of the waterfront by bringing people to live there, and is permeable to the city by means of a broad pedestrian promenade that is already characteristic of the harbour? Panic for the sake of what? The imagined right to stop off in a smoke shop and buy a Snickers bar, or wander into the ground floor for a sit-down meal, in any residential condominium building in town because the teachings of Jane Jacobs supposedly paved the way - created the demand maybe - for the right to do so? Ridiculous!

As with the recent discussion of the Distillery District, where attempts were constantly being made to link that development to developments in other parts of the city - and other cities even - where no interchangeability was possible, so we're seeing the same thing happening here with the "superblock" canard that doesn't deal with the actual site and what is being done there.

Actually, I found the opposite - you viewed the Distillery as you would anywhere else in the city. Now you're comparing Riverdale to the Waterfront, as though they're interchangeable. They're not.

I really don't see what the problem is with adding some additional destinations to this development. It's not like the design has to really change, at least not drastically. This is really the perfect site (and an excellent waterfront site) for a mix of uses.
 
In 30 years it will be considered equally rude.

I'm not so sure about that--maybe at worst, more likely a "meh" development like the residential landmark at Yonge + QQ yet unmentioned, the World Trade Centre.

Yeah, so instead of trying to get as close to Greenwich Village as possible, we should emulate the most failed development models of the 50s and 60s, building upper class Cabrini Greens.

Maybe it was earlier in this thread, but I raised as a Pier 27 comparison point the example of Toronto's original upper/middle class Cabrini Green, Peter Caspari's City Park complex of 1954.

Perhaps it's the perfect case to keep in mind--a visual landmark, and from all evidence a well-loved social success, yet it's nothing more than slabs perpendicular to the street, no shops or nothin', and it's raised above the street level to the south, so those who want to decry Modernism's so-called "anti-urban" qualities have a lot of fuel here.

All I can say is: like it or lump it. And count me in with the (non-dogmatic, though) "like it" bunch--though of course, an underlying demographic reason for its "well-loved social success" would make Richard Florida squeal in glee...
 

Back
Top