[Hydrogen]

Nobody is worrying about convenience stores or dry cleaners. Those are words put into opponents' mouths by the Clewes Brigade, who believe that the only conceivable alternatives are a condo with a dry cleaner at the base, or a condo with more townhouses at the base.

Sure, I might be putting words into mouths; but this is being done in a thread on a topic where the planned building has been deemed a complete failure and waterfront disaster by virtue of not having retail in it.

I'm a minor villain in the piece.

I want Scaramouche. I want Jamie Kennedy. I want a good sandwich place. I want outdoor restaurants. I want shops. I want offices. I want a cultural institution, like a university or college campus, museum, concert hall, etc. Ryerson and U of T are both expanding, and they might be suitable. Maybe even a night spot or two.

Such things are to come on the waterfront. The fact that they are not in the very first building does not automatically mean that the building is a failure.

 

[interchange42]

Discounts?! Sure - UT members get in at 100% off! You are the show!

Anyway, now that we have the War On The Waterfront, and the Clewes Brigade vs. The Clue-less Brigade (not my terms), we might as well be better informed about the battle lines. Permit me to illustrate:

From Building magazine:

That lawn on the west (right) side of the render is actually under the control of WaterfronTORONTO (see site plan below), who likely don't have a plan for what to put there yet. When WT held the Central Waterfront design competition they were likely expecting to be given at least some of of the Pier 27 land by the Feds as the maps included in West 8's presentation show an arrangement of the public realm of the pier that is no longer feasible. We'll have to wait to see how WaterfronTORONTO plans to develop what they're left with.

The site plan is missing the bridge that links the two easterly buildings of Phase 2. It does show the location of phases 3 and 4. I believe those phases are required by the city to have not less than 50% of their ground floor Queens Quay frontage as commercial. There is certainly private space between the buildings of each phase here, but little of that along the water's edge. It remains to be seen how the southerly Freeland Street extension between the phases will be paved, landscaped and edged, but the city's public art plan for the site indicates that art is intended for this space, as it is for the 25 metre wide public promenades along the Yonge Street Slip.

42

 

[Hydrogen]

No doubt a perfect spot for a dry cleaner.

 

[ProjectEnd]

Pier 27 should be shifted over eastward where the tabletop can float over the Parliament slip.

Great point. Its not so much that the Pier27 buildings are unimaginative, its that they could take the existing design and alter it just so much that its a really evocative piece of design. One thing, as mentioned above, to help this would be to increase the cantilever of the "tabletop" so it extends over something - i.e. the slip. I'm also not enjoying how the two buildings are connected at the ground level, negating the pedestrian experience of traveling under the only think which separates this development from those in North York, Markham or *shudder* Pickering.

This is a small development in Leeuwarden, Netherlands. While its not exactly Pier27 in terms of capacity, it presents an interesting spin on 'waterfront housing.' Perhaps we could have the present building (Pier27) and instead of that silly marina, put something like this at the foot (You could even have the harbor in places where this wasn't).

 

[unimaginative2]

I believe those phases are required by the city to have not less than 50% of their ground floor Queens Quay frontage as commercial.

And no doubt it will be given over to the same Rabba/Moviestore/Dry Cleaners in every other condo building. The sole public amenity at the foot of Yonge Street will be a Mr. Movie.

 

[adma]

Here's a question which might definitively mark the divide btw/the Clewesistas + the non-Clewesistas: what if the developers instead followed the model of Port Credit's recent St. Lawrence Starch-zone developments?

 

[urbandreamer]

Actually Fram-style quality "new old" +Aa modern would be my dream come true. If every developer could agree to keep a certain height and style going for a nice streetwall effect--eg Stewart St--but have a mix of Fram-style red brick with Aa-style chicness the waterfront would be perfect! 10 story brownstone-style development.

 

[ShonTron]

Here's a question which might definitively mark the divide btw/the Clewesistas + the non-Clewesistas: what if the developers instead followed the model of Port Credit's recent St. Lawrence Starch-zone developments?

Interesting point. I liked what they did with Port Credit, it's a urban, lively mix of condos, and retail (chain and independent) with a mini-square in the middle. Apart from dispensing with the townhouses, and perhaps allowing a few extra floors on the condos, it would be a very pleasant alternative model for Pier 27. It's at the foot of Hurontario, a historically significant street as well. Clewes architecture could fit in, only the two blocks facing Lakeshore east of Hurontario are anything close to "faux" industrial, the rest fairly modern, lots of glass and brick at the base.

 

[interchange42]

East of Fram's Port Credit development are single family homes. West is a jumble of low rise residential, commercial, and port related buildings.

East of Pier 27 is Redpath/Tate & Lyle/Domino - the country's largest sugar refinery. West of Peir 27 is the concrete and precast hulk of the Westin Harbour Castle.

Townhouses fit in just fine along with low-to-mid-rise residential in Port Credit, but I don't see it for Pier 27. If anything, the Pier 27 first two phases are going to de dominated by the much taller and visually heavy buildings to their west, and the industrial uses to the east. I assume that in order to address the massing inequities, Phases 3 and 4 at the north end of the site will be a fair bit taller than Phases 1 and 2. Building those phases taller will also give the high floor units unimpeded lake views, whereas the low floor units will have to make do with views down the view corridors that have been left between the south phases.

The real question with this site now is what is WaterfronTORONTO going to do with its land at the northwest corner of the site?

Are they waiting to see what Pier 27's Phase 4 holds architecturally before deciding how they should respond? Or are they engaged in a dialogue with the developer now?

What ideas do you hope WaterfronTORONTO are considering?

42

 

[Irishmonk]

This project is basically the worst of Harbourfront without any of the redeeming cultural attractions. It turns what could be Toronto's most singularely inspiring location into...a private lawn with driveways. It's not just the laziness and unimaginativeness of this development that grates, but the casual, dismissive way it raises a (well manicured) middle finger at the city eagerly perched on its doorstep. Not only is it a waste of space, but a waste of very expensive space THAT YOU CAN'T AFFORD, SO BUGGER OFF. This lost opportunity will be much lamented for decades to come.

 

[Urban Shocker]

Hmmmm. Another attempt to demonize "the rich"? Meanwhile, anyone of modest means living in a south facing apartment in City Place has a far more spectacular panoramic view out across the Toronto Islands, beyond the Western Gap, and to the Eastern Headland than someone in Pier 27 will.

unimaginative2: There is no logic to your claim that institutional use is "obviously" the best use of this "prominent" site simply because a 24 hour a day institution may ( or may not! ) draw people there "from all over the city and outside" at all hours of day and night. There's nothing important about this site, other than the fact that it's where the landfill meets the lake near the base of Yonge Street, and it can't be described as any more "prominent"? than anywhere else along the harbour where the landfill meets the lake. Captain John's sank there - and Captain John's is a business - so I suppose a tenuous case could be made for a permanent consumer festival to celebrate the only memorable thing that ever happened there. And I think you're kinda making it.

Precisely which ]institution, that's open 24 hours a day, do you have in mind? Neither Ryerson nor the U of T are open to the public on that basis, nor are any museums or concert halls that I know of.

Also, if the lot is "carved up into dozens of lots" as you want it to be, how can it be used for an institution? An institution requires a large lot - not the tiny twenty-fourth of a lot parcels that will survive after your beloved government bureaucrats have expropriated it.

Harbour Square was, indeed, a pioneering building, unimaginative 2, not only expressively - the concrete brutalism that's so characteristic of the Toronto of that time - but because it was the first to bring people to live in a derelict former industrial district and helped revive it. Pier 27 continues that initiative. I realize you have a history here of objecting to reviving derelict former industrial sites for people to live in, but that doesn't negate the fact that it's happening and that good local firms are doing the work, now as before.

 

[yyzer]

for the record, I have no problem with this development at all - very beautiful buildings...

There will be plenty of other opportunities for the retail-cultural-boardwalk-outdoor cafe experience which many of us want along the lakeshore, going east....

 

[Mongo]

Harbour Square was, indeed, a pioneering building, unimaginative 2, not only expressively - the concrete brutalism that's so characteristic of the Toronto of that time - but because it was the first to bring people to live in a derelict former industrial district and helped revive it.

True. I often wonder at the lack of historical perspective demonstrated in so many posts here. For example, here's a lot of hostility directed at Toronto's 1960s/1970s brutalist architecture, mainly along the line of how hideous it is. Well, guess what? I was there at the time, and when those buildings were being built they were often quite admired. Tastes change, especially over a timespan of decades.

Another example would be people declaring that the TD Centre buildings are "just a bunch of boxes", when in fact they are among the finest examples of International Modernism on the planet. I can imagine what people will be saying about the current crop of buildings in 20 or 30 years: "All those podiums are so 2007!"

Bill

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Lots of fishermen posting in this thread! Red herrings galore!

 

[syn]

US:

I don't see how the fact that nothing memorable has happened at this location means it shouldn't be anything more than a giant residential zone with a promenade. It's the start of one of the city's most important street...I think that's "prominent" enough to warrant something even a little more than a condo, as well designed as it may be.