You're mistaken. First of all, as US correctly said, the area north of Queen to Bloor was initially divided to 100 acre park lots. The area south of Lot Street (now Queen Street) was rigidly planned by a number of planners and Simcoe lieutenants including Peter Russell (of Peter Street fame). The streets with jogs south of Queen come from streets that were originally discontinuous in the plans and were later joined. Market Street and Wellington Street, for example.

All of those plans created a very successful model well worth emulating, a flexible model that has proven far more successful at creating attractive and accessible urban spaces than rigid modernist planning wherever it has been implemented.
 
unimaginative2 said:
We're both applying ideology here. It's just that the Jacobian ideology that promotes walkable streets that I'm promoting has a history of success, while the modernist urban planning ideology has a long and ignominious history of failure.
Click to expand...

Or at least "exclusivity"--of a sort. (Remember that "exclusivity" marks successful applications of such ideology like City Park.)

But...in this particular location, something strictly "Jacobian" might just as well wind up looking like a pathetically meagre and underscaled forced issue.

That's a reason why I strategically brought up the "Port Credit" model; from the strict standpoint of a Jacobs/Whyte adherent, it's exemplary, but here it'd look puny and milquetoast--and, rather paradoxically, "suburban". That is, the idealistic reality of today's "progressive" suburban planning, as opposed to the kind of easy tract-house punching bag AP's sought to offer. In a way, Port Credit is doing a "better" job of picking up where the St. Lawrence neighbourhood (supposedly) left off (and, weirdly enough, it's *also* a "St. Lawrence neighbourhood"--Starch, that is). But to a fault.

Then again, to get to something more urban and Jacobean, one thing forgotten in this discussion is that Harbourfront has its own 80s St. Lawrence sequel out on Bathurst Quay--but thanks to the course of subsequent Harbourfront development, it turned out to be something of a sad, stranded anticlimax. It's not that it would've been a bad urban model; more that it was hounded out of the joint...
 
I think those who want the cafes and shops will still get them, but just not close to the waterfront since the ground levels of the first 2 Pier 27 phases will have townhouses.

The stores will likely be in the last phases which will be at Queen's Quay.
 
I can't believe this parking lot will be replaced by the best waterfront architecture (sorry Arthur) ever proposed for Toronto.

And it will happen in my lifetime.

If only council had the wisdom to block this development for 20 years or so... until they came up with a good idea.

Ah well.
 
Image

site_pier2707re1big.jpg


Globe and Mail
December 7, 2007
 
^ nice!

If we're getting condos on this spot, I'm glad it's Pier 27.

It does suck that this large space couldn't have been bought out and reserved for institutional or recreational space. It could have been the place to build Toronto's new iconic waterfront building. The crown jewel of the waterfront revitalization.

Now that plan is gone. Nonetheless, if the city is willing to be a little creative, Captain John's can be taken out and a wider pier can be introduced, jutting out into the harbor. At the tip of this pier could be our waterfront jewel, surrounded by water on all sides.
 
The cost of doing such would certainly prohibit the actual building from being a 'jewel.' I can't see it happening. We will be lucky if the area is nicely landscaped in the next 10 years.
 
I was agreeing with the moving of Captain John's part... I think there is the intention to reclaim part of the Yonge Street fiord (west side of the site) which opens up more public space... closer to the true foot of Yonge Street. As for some sort of "wow" destination structure... that's another matter.
 
Is that a redesigned phase 1 or the envisioned phase 2?

Looks pretty sharp although I dont like how they have incorporated the bridge thing more into the design. I liked it more when it looked like someone else had just left it there by mistake.
 
We don't need to dig too deep into what hypothetically should go on the site or what could go on to the site. Here is a simple comparison: Do you think this development is better, worse or the same as the residential enclave to the west between Bathurst and Spadina beside and behind the music garden? Both are simple waterfront treatments with very little retail and some access to the waterfront. You can't tell fully until it's built and you're on the ground but I would speculate hands down that the Bathurst to Spadina prescinct will turn out to be the superior environment. I also find the building layout of pier 27 utterly perplexing although maybe someone could enlighten me, the units are neither oriented to the city nor to the water.
 
Bruce Kuwabara and his design review buddies are gonna have a shitfit when they see the flat, suburban-style roof profiles of these buildings.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top