Admiral Beez said:
One thing I love about kids is their brutal honesty and candour when assessing a claim or description. My daughter and I were riding by Sugar Beach and the first thing my young daughter says is, this is not a beach, there's no water entry, all this is a field of sand, which in her mind is the worst part of the beach since you're burning your feet or trying to protect yourself from the sand by sitting on a towel.

I can just hear Sugar Beach's designers mimicking every evildoer from Scooby Doo, "I would have fooled everyone if it wasn't for those meddlesome kids!"
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't fall far from the tree?
 
I was strolling through Sherbourne Common a few days ago and noticed most of the trees on the east side of the park are struggling or dead.
 
Tewder said:
Out of the mouths of babes... honesty.
Click to expand...
I think folks are missing the intent of Sugar Beach. The name has always been a bit cheeky, and it was never intended to be a "real" beach, but instead a bit of public realm whimsy right across from an industrial site. I think it is a great, creative way to use a space that otherwise could have a boring tiny sliver of grass or empty plaza, and is one of the few times that Toronto gets a space with a sense of humour.
 
Most people that go to "real" beaches don't go into the water anyway. They just lay on the sand and bake in the sun, exactly like what people do at Sugar Beach.
 
Tulse said:
I think folks are missing the intent of Sugar Beach. The name has always been a bit cheeky, and it was never intended to be a "real" beach, but instead a bit of public realm whimsy right across from an industrial site. I think it is a great, creative way to use a space that otherwise could have a boring tiny sliver of grass or empty plaza, and is one of the few times that Toronto gets a space with a sense of humour.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It's impossible to put a real beach there due to the steep drop to the water and the fact that the Redpath refinery still uses the area for industrial shipping. There are great swimmable beaches in Toronto, but not right there. In the context of the location, however, Sugar Beach is a wonderful *park* and it's unique and fun and clearly many people enjoy relaxing there, so I think it's a great success. The only realistic alternative would have been a patch of grass or a paved path, not a "real" beach. And we have a nice grass park a stone's throw away at Sherbourne Common.

Besides, there's a strong precedent for cities to build these sorts of urban faux-"beaches": when I visited various cities in France, including Paris by the Seine about a decade ago, they had trucked in sand and umbrellas to build temporary spots for people to relax and play in the sun and they were incredibly popular.
 
Tulse said:
I think folks are missing the intent of Sugar Beach. The name has always been a bit cheeky, and it was never intended to be a "real" beach, but instead a bit of public realm whimsy right across from an industrial site. I think it is a great, creative way to use a space that otherwise could have a boring tiny sliver of grass or empty plaza, and is one of the few times that Toronto gets a space with a sense of humour.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Thank you. This same discussion gets regurgitated about once every 18 months or so in this thread.
 
There is no reason to be down on Toronto's waterfront. It is true that we are not replicating Chicago's waterfront, Toronto is not Chicago. Our central waterfront is predominantly a man-made port that is well sheltered by the Toronto Islands. Converting the shoreline back to beaches, as it seems some people would like, is not an effective nor realistic option. The plan as developed by Waterfront Toronto is excellent. We are building a waterfront that is akin to how London butts up to the Thames or Paris to the Seine.

The updated QQ, while not too attractive just yet, holds great promise to be a beautiful street. Just south, behind the buildings and parks, a contiguous walkway along the water will extend almost 4km from Bathurst Street to Parliament. This is a wonderful start. There will be beautiful additions at the foot Yonge Street and with the upgraded Jack Layton Park. There are plans for Piers to extend into the harbor.

It is important to remember that 25 years ago the waterfront was completely derelict. We're making good choices and I think we are pointed in the right direction.
 
Right, we're building vibrant communities on our waterfront, not some weird showpiece tourist trap.
 
Millennium Park is neat but, Grant Park is simply too big and underutilized space for a downtown area. The rest of the central waterfront is lined with ugly apartment towers alongside of a 16 lane arterial. Outside of that looks a lot like what you see in Toronto except the shore is lined with sandy beaches with Lake Michigan being significantly warmer than Lake Ontario.
 
grey said:
Right, we're building vibrant communities on our waterfront, not some weird showpiece tourist trap.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I'd take Waterfront Toronto's direction over Chicago's approach any day.

If we want a Millennial Park (and I strongly believe we should have some comparable area to Millennial Park along our waterfront) we should look towards Ontario Place. Not to our central waterfront.
 
Tulse said:
I think folks are missing the intent of Sugar Beach. The name has always been a bit cheeky, and it was never intended to be a "real" beach, but instead a bit of public realm whimsy right across from an industrial site. I think it is a great, creative way to use a space that otherwise could have a boring tiny sliver of grass or empty plaza, and is one of the few times that Toronto gets a space with a sense of humour.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that a "world class" city like Paris wouldn't do something so gauche as call a sandpit a "Plage de Paris" if it doesn't have direct access to the water....

paris-plage.jpg
 

Attachments

  • paris-plage.jpg
    paris-plage.jpg
    195.7 KB · Views: 740
WislaHD said:
Agreed. I'd take Waterfront Toronto's direction over Chicago's approach any day.

If we want a Millennial Park (and I strongly believe we should have some comparable area to Millennial Park along our waterfront) we should look towards Ontario Place. Not to our central waterfront.
Click to expand...

In order to have something like Millennium Park, we will need a federal government willing to pony up wads of cash, and a rich family like the Pritzkers to pony up even more. That is how Chicago got their park built.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top