If we're getting condos down there, I see no better developer right now than Cityzen powered by Clewes.

I'd love to see a couple of the buildings proposed for their Mississauga project recycled and used on Toronto's waterfront.
 
I think Unimaginative makes a valid point - there needs to be some mixed use. A good restaurant would at least make the area appear more open to non-residents. There is no need for residential uses on the ground floor.

Apart from that, since it is unlikely we'll get a Humanitas museum or whatever, this is the best-case scenerio, and will at least be an interesting building that will not be a major physical barrier.
 
sheesh ... I was strictly refering to the east end of the central waterfront when I brought up bridging the quays. Do you not see the difference between what is built west of Yonge (cultural space) and what is planned out east (mixed use community)?

No, I don't see the difference between Pier 27 and Harbour Square. I'm not going to give Clewes a get out of jail free card like everyone else here.
 
Who'll save the waterfront? Not Miller, not Ottawa
TheStar.com - News - Who'll save the waterfront? Not Miller, not Ottawa

June 04, 2007
Christopher Hume

What makes the fate of the most important site on the Toronto waterfront so terribly sad is that it didn't have to end up this way.

The 5-hectare property, officially known as MT27, sits at the foot of Yonge St. It has long been designated for some special public purpose such as an opera house, a United Nations institute, a square, park, whatever...

But last week when developers who own the land, Fernbrook Homes and Cityzen, announced their plans, it became painfully clear that the public has been largely shut out of what will be a private condo complex.

True, a 25-metre promenade will run along the west and south edges of the site, and there may be more public amenities further east, perhaps an extension of Freeland St.

But this is a far cry from the days when the Toronto Waterfront Revitalization Corp. was talking about a major public cultural facility for MT27.

Where did its plans fall apart?

The story goes back to the summer before last when the TWRC, the city and federal government were involved in negotiations with the then-owners of MT27, Avro Quay Ltd., to buy the site. A deal was agreed to and the Liberal minister for the waterfront, Joe Volpe, managed to get the go-ahead from Treasury Board when a federal election was called.

Needless to say, voters tossed out the Liberals and Volpe's successor, John Baird, the man who now spends his time promoting the global embarrassment that is Canada's national environmental policy, pulled the plug on the deal.

In the meantime, Fernbrook and Cityzen appeared on the scene and bought the property. Still, discussions continued, this time, however, the intention was to purchase just the western half of the site. Though this wasn't the ideal scenario, it gave the TWRC an opportunity to do something truly public and spectacular on the most significant portion of the land, the part closest to Yonge.

But that would have meant taller buildings on the eastern half of the property, an idea Cityzen and Fernbrook could have lived with.

But not Mayor David Miller. He objected to extra height, and again, the deal died.

Though the TWRC went so far as to hire Toronto architect Bruce Kuwabara to conceive a plan for the precinct, in the end it was left to private developers to rebuild the site according to their priorities.

To their credit, Fernbrook and Cityzen, hired a first-rate architect, Peter Clewes, who has done something quite striking. But it will be a condo, which regardless of its height or design excellence, is private property.

No one would expect Baird to act responsibly, but Miller is different. Or so we thought. Sadly, it's becoming increasingly clear that he won't be the leader everyone was hoping for. Because of his lack of vision and willingness to compromise, the chances of greatness on the waterfront are already seriously compromised.

And if Miller's failure on MT27 weren't enough, there's Project Symphony just down the road at Queens Quay and Jarvis St. In this fiasco, Miller eagerly agreed to settle for architectural mediocrity and a business deal that will see the city subsidizing a private corporation, Corus Entertainment, and paying for its new headquarters.

It's time for Torontonians to start paying attention to what's happening on their waterfront before it's too late. Miller can't be trusted and neither can the federal government.

The waterfront's best friend so far has been provincial infrastructure renewal minister, David Caplan, who ensured that the Ontario Realty Corp., which owns much of the land involved, is on board with the goals of revitalization. Sadly, Caplan couldn't override his boss, Premier Dalton McGuinty, whose decision to put a power-generating station on the dock lands is sheer folly.

This is not the way to build a city, let alone revitalize a waterfront.
 
Nice to see design culture continuing to reclaim the waterfront with buildings like this one. Most such developments are south of the Quay, not north of it, and are linked to the lake with pedestrian promenades. I refer to the renovated terminal warehouse that became a shopping centre with condos above in the '80's, several new parks, that condo at the foot of Spadina that won a GG's architecture award, the transformation of old industrial buildings into the Power Plant gallery and the theatre next to it. I don't see how you can classify Queen's Quay as a waterfront promenade.
 
As effective as it is between University and Yonge where it is uninterrupted office towers, and as effective as it is between Jarvis and Parliament where it is uninterrupted shops. That is to say very effective, and no deterrent to pedestrians who wish to walk along it and enjoy the variety it offers.
 
I wouldn't want to repeat the stretch of King from University to Yonge on the waterfront, and the segment from Jarvis to Parliament has shops, offices, apartments, condos, and other uses. Even if it were only shops along the water, it wouldn't be so bad since at least it's a public use. My problem is with a purely exclusive residential use.

Despite the architect's best intentions, how long will this public space, particularly under the building or on the quay at the entrance to these multi-million-dollar ground-level condos, remain truly public? I guarantee that in a few years, the condo corporation which will own the building will start enacting a number of measures to ensure that homeless, "hooligan youth," etc. are not "trespassing" on their private property.
 
Well, if it's private property, they would be right to do so, as would any property owner.

If it's public property, they won't be able to do anything anyway.
 
Has this gone through site plan yet? The city can easily require public access as part of the site plan process.
 
Someone walking along King from Jarvis to Parliament will not have access to the private condo apartments or business offices along that route, merely to the shops at ground level. So, from the point of view of a member of the public passing through ( which seems to be the sole concern of some here ) this is an exclusive, single-use stretch of the street: commercial for-profit enterprises intended to relieve the public of their discretionary income. But that doesn't deter pedestrians from enjoying this stretch of the street any more than the office oriented nature of the stretch between University and Yonge prevents them from walking through and enjoying the unique character of that part of King.

Just as employment equity doesn't call for all workplaces to be filled with quota's of minority groups mirroring their exact representation in the general population, there is no reason why every waterfront development ought to be micromanaged by civic bureaucrats to ensure that pedestrians can stop off and buy a Snickers bar or a hotdog at every building along their route.
 
We're not talking about every waterfront development, just this one.

I agree. It would have been nice if something like the HTO park was created at the foot of Yonge St along with stretches of cafes and restaurants. Other than the several half decent boardwalk restaurants at the Queens Quay terminal there really isn't anything else by the central waterfront. Pier27 site would have been a great location for such idea because it is so vast. Too bad.:(
 
The Yonge Street pier could always be extending south into the lake, non? While Pier 27 is a bit questionable, I don't think all is lost either WRT to public space at the foot of Yonge Street either.
 
I agree with Darkstar.
I was on the L'Art boat yesterday, and when we passed the Pier 27 site, I started thinking that a new ferry pier jutting out from the current location and another one from the foot of Yonge Street would solve the (problem?) of the new condo on this site. Even without a condo going there, I think that the current Ferry dock and foot of Yonge SHOULD have piers jetting out into the water.
 

Back
Top